Bravo Mr. Trump!

Brillant tactics

Powerful intervention

Great achievement! 🕊️

Be careful now!

  

All of you are gambling with World War III

 

Russia is the central part of the emerging East European Civilisation, which reaches from Kamchatka to Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Serbia and includes these East European areas. Obviously, Ukraine belongs to the same civilisation. Like almost all civilizations this East European one consists of several countries. And like in our Second European Civilisation, the nations in East Europe can be deadly enemies, but they nevertheless are part of the same overall culture.

 

In present East Europe the situation is complicated by the overwhelming influence from us in the neighboring Second European Civilisation, an influence which becomes stronger and stronger toward geographical west. This influence brings East Europe close to West Europe, but in the present decades it also causes resentment and resistance, not only in Russia, but also in the eastern countries of the EU. Russia is the part of East Europe which is least marked by the cultural wind from west.

 

This civilisation is newborn. Like the nations of the newborn Second European Civilisation 1000 years ago, it sees itself as a holy land with a Messianic mission. Europe wanted to free its own and neighboring areas from the Arabic Oriental Civilisation, which then had an influence over West Europe similar to the influence we today have over East Europe.

 

Because of historical traditions, geographic location and greater freedom from alien pollution Russia has always seen itself as sacred. This may sound absurd for us intellectual and skeptical minds of our rational modernity who think that we have reached a universally valid peak of civilisation. But these feelings constitute an immense part of the Russian soul, not only for a single ruler, hated in the West.

 

Ukraine was the original core of Russia, even though the centre of gravity gradually moved to Moscow. As such, the area of Ukraine is still sacred for Russians and seen as an integral part of Russian culture. Until the Russian invasion, many Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens saw themselves as as both Ukrainians and Russians. Only the attack from the East started the creation of a coherent Ukrainian nation.

 

The point is that besides being located dangerously close to their capital, for Russians the area of Ukraine is an immensely important part of their nation.

 

More generally spoken, the east-ward expansion of NATO and the EU constituted a gross provocation and humiliation of Russia. Also the liberator of East Europe, Gorbatjov warned against it and rightly felt betrayed by the West.

 

It is not realpolitik to see Russia and Ukraine as just two ordinary countries and the conflict as just another case where rationality and rules for coexistence can be applied directly. This is hopelessly naive. For Russia, Ukraine is politically and culturally of existential importance. This must be taken into account. Only then can foreign politics become real. An attempt from the West to retake the whole of the holy grounds could result in something far more serious than drones or hackers. The effect could become an existential threat to Europe and the World. Closed airports are just a first small warning.

 

Something else: Already now the EU includes several countries which may be enemies of Russia but are part of the same East European Civilisation. If also Ukraine enters the union, it would result in a giant East European block, a fifth column which would undermine the political and cultural coherence of the Union even further. This would add to the centrifugal effect of populists in West Europe. It may be better for the EU to consolidate its old center than to stretch itself further and further.  

 

Obviously, an attack on a sovereign country is indeed unacceptable and must be condemned. But it does not come out of a vacuum. In reality, Ukraine gains from the invasion. Before this, the country was split between the NATO- and EU-oriented western parts and the Russian-oriented east. Majority shifted between them. Some people in the eastern half were de facto Russians. In the western half a loud minority were and still are extreme nationalists with racist tendencies, something even the EU and America saw, at least before the invasion. Since the start of the war, most of Ukraine has become a more coherent nation.

 

If Kiev cedes the occupied areas, they can also gain peace in addition to this coherence. So can Europe. Some may say that Russia in that case will go further. But a re-occupation of the lost Ukrainian territories can certainly not secure peace. No, it would be stepping many miles over the red line. It would destabilize and threaten the EU and the World as a whole.

 

 

Encouragement or deterrent ?

  

It may just be a reflection of the lowered political level in the United States, but for most  inhabitants and politicians in Europe, Latin America, China etc. it looks as if America is being covered and swallowed by a deluge of incomprehensible madness and garbage.

 

How does this affect thinking and politics in the outside world? Two thousand years ago the Romans had incorporated almost all countries in the Greco-Roman Civilisation. Therefore every nation had to follow Rome in the chaotic decline. Obviously this is not the situation for the United States today. Therefore countries and populations in the rest of the world have a choice. Should we follow the Americans and let us be swallowed or not? In recent posts I have argued that not all parts of a civilisation  are bound to follow the steep decline in late modernity. Some may do this, but others can manage to prolong or sustain mature modernity. This choice was what I called a new bifurcation.

 

The question is how the impression of the deluge in America will affect the political decline elsewhere. Either it will serve as inspiration and encourage populists, e.g. in Europe, or it will do the opposite. I tend to believe the latter.

 

The US example is so grotesque and exaggerated that it will deter voters and politicians from going further in that direction:

1} The broad population in places like Europe and China etc. are far better educated than people in America. The US educational system is a miserable scandal. In these years many people everywhere do indeed want simple and polarized solutions. But knowledge and schooled causal thinking nevertheless expose the limits of populism.

2} Hundreds or in Asia thousands of years of cultural and humanistic refinement makes present America look like schoolboys. Also Latin America has strong traditions of culture and political thinking which make the present United States look like clowns.

3} US foreign and trade policy with bullying, punishment and interference plus American support for the atrocities in Gaza cause resentment.

 

These points mean that support for Trump is limited to minorities in countries which have a strong cultural heritage or are  well educated. Support for populists too closely associated with the US president is likely to  fall as new absurdities are reported from America on a daily basis. This tendency will of course only be amplified as America slips into civil war.

 

 

If America pushes countries and peoples away, what can these do? As is obvious for everybody - almost everybody -  the United States as opposed to Rome does not control the world politically and militarily. The existence of other giants like China, Russia,  Europe and India sets boundaries. This gives us a choice. We do not need to follow the US deluge. Instead,  following one or more of the other big powers can give us strength to uphold mature modernity. 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

The Second American Revolution

 The collapse of the checks and balances which should control the executive power in America continues with incredible speed. Also, the influence and guidance of the president from government, experts and administration is minimal. The majority of the American legislative are reduced to puppets, and even media and knowledge are under attack. Presently you get the impression that the only independent still functioning part of the formerly so effective power-sharing is Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

 

On the international scene Donald Trump has been very successful in bullying the EU and some other countries in and beyond the American spheres into uneven trade deals supposedly benefitting the economy of the United States.

 

Thus, the power of the Supreme President looks enormous. But there are limits. Trying to influence the judicial system in allied countries is extreme and this even more so in countries where the courts as opposed to the American Supreme Court are independent. Such interference will be normal and effective procedure some decades from now, but in the present conditions it is premature and counterproductive. As long as there are more than one superpower with overlapping spheres, a such treatment will only push the affected countries into the arms of competing powers. The same goes for high tariffs used solely as political pressure or punishment.

————

 

Nevertheless, the sudden changes in the political system and its behavior in America are remarkable. How has this incredibly quick transition away from mature modernity with power-sharing and democracy been possible?! Here it is useful to think about a revolution. By this I am not talking about a de facto coup d’état where a group or an individual seizes power like in the communist ‘revolution’ in Russia in 1917. A true revolution is a process by which the organization of society and politics change in a time span which is short compared to normal gradual development. Such a quick transition results 1) if development has been held back by conserving forces, and the resulting tensions cause a quick correction or adaption, so that the organization and leadership of a nation again corresponds to the developmental level of society. The archetypal example is the French Revolution. Another opposite possibility is 2) if the leadership of a country has pressed organization and thinking forward before society is ready. In this case we see an opposite correction. A good example is the Iranian Revolution.

 

We can see the present developments in the United States as a revolution. The changes are so quick because they were long overdue. Society had already for more than two decades left the phase of mature modernity and entered declined modernity. The corresponding change in organization and style of rule had been held back by mature politicians and presidents from both parties and indeed by the complicated system of power-sharing and controls and administration, the so-called deep state.

 

The current presidency of Donald Trump is the revolutionary correction. Hence the speed of the present changes. But have things then settled down?

Probably not. The problem is that the conflict between mature and the now victorious declined positions has been coupled to the extremely polarized conflict between left and right. This means that the current revolution is not only a correction of old forms, but also a sharp turn to the right in many fields, not least distribution of wealth. This radical right-ward turn can result in a new revolution, this time not so much for a restoration of mature modernity, but for a redistribution of incomes. This may cause a new counter-revolution etc etc. In the end these shifts will be more and more about personal power. This is visible already now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gaza

 

Large-scale manmade humanitarian disasters like destruction, death and hunger inflicted on innocent civilians must be condemned no matter framework and political views and no matter where and by whom and why.

 

That fear of the opinion of voters and supporters can prevent leaders from putting an end to such suffering is one of the greatest failures of democracy. Only a visionary supreme leader can have the will to intervene and have the ability to convince or fool his electoral base and followers to accept that he orders a close ally to change its course.

 

Bifurcation 2.0

  

At a time there was much talk about a bifurcation between the United States + followers and China + followers. Later this was called decoupling.

In this post I will use the term bifurcation in another more overarching meaning: the emerging fundamental difference between more and less politically declined nations and two corresponding ways of viewing the world. The post is about world development, but mostly about the working of this blog.

 

I will commence with the latter. If somebody reads my posts, he or she should be aware that my comments are on three levels. They have different rooms for discussion, criticism and revision both from me and from the audience:

 

1} The basic theory, often described in earlier posts, can simplified be stated this way:

• Different civilizations with lifetimes of at least 1500 years develop in parallel with homologue stages and developments, just displaced in time from each other, some earlier, some later.

• Every civilization has its own character or culture.

 

• Coincidences and contexts co-shape the development of each civilisation.

These basic assumptions can hardly be doubted.

 

2} The next level is my analysis, that is the application of the theory on specific developments and events in one or more civilizations, often in the form of comparative analyses.

Such applications can be challenged, and others can be proposed.

 

3} On the last level are the attitudes expressed in this blog.

 Here the reader is absolutely free to have other opinions.

 

Obviously, other analysts can make significant contributions to our understanding based on other theories. In practical terms, I like others often mix analysis and attitude.

 

So far so good. We have three categories of statements with different degrees of truth. But the bifurcation introduced above adds two further categories. Half of the world is in one condition or phase of historical development, an earlier but sustained one. The other half is in the next phase. The phases are of course ‘mature’ and ’declined’ modernity respectively. This is what constitutes the new bifurcation. It does not in any way challenge the basic theory. On the contrary, such differential developments are easily understood and predictable. As argued in earlier and recent posts, rule-based countries with sharing and controls of power from East Asia to Europe and elsewhere belong to the mature world. Countries where such systems are broken down and executive power is being concentrated in one authoritarian or autocratic leader belong to the declined world. They are everywhere. That the United States has joined this club is of enormous historical importance. If we have a leader of this type in a major power, he can be called an overlord. Of course, the picture of the division of the world is more complex. Many nations are somewhere between mature and declined or shift between the positions following elections.

 

This bifurcation makes a big difference on the levels of application and attitude. It results in a doubling of these. In the present time we have two frameworks within which to analyze and relate to developments, events and politicians.

The world has become a split personality. So has this blog.

If you see things through the glasses of declined modernity, they look very different from what you see looking through the glasses of mature modernity.

 

Both viewpoints or frameworks are predictable parts of the present time. They are both valid in the corresponding parts of the globe. One framework can be used to relate to its own corresponding part of the world or to evaluate the other part. As an analyst I must always be aware of which framework I use and for what. We all must.

 

Thus, presently we have two cultures of politics and analysis on Earth. It is essential for commentators and actors to bear this in mind. Too often, politicians and the media try to understand phenomena in the other part of the world as if they were in their own part. If these phenomena go against the way the world ‘should function’, then they are seen as wrong and dangerous. Most typically, people in the old mature world try to evaluate and handle politics and decisions in the declined world in the old manner. They often see these new developments as the end of the world or as transient anomalies or as mere results of the psychology of a president. Surely, the good old days and ways will soon return. They will not.

 

 

To return to the categories through which we can relate to the world, they can be summarized in this figure:

 

 

 

p

Frame	Mature	Declined
Attitude
Analysis
Theory

 

 

 

Note that the bifurcation or dichotomy has nothing to do with political left vs right. These wings exist in both parts.

 

As said, the two frameworks characterize two different parts of the present world and the corresponding two ways of analyzing and judging events and politics. As the basic theory is difficult to challenge seriously, it is the common foundation, not only for the two present frameworks, but for all developments in all civilizations. Therefore, it is marked in black in the table.

 

Thus, there are four possible ways in which I can comment events and developments, and which may be challenged and revised:

Mature analysis and attitude

Declined analysis and attitude

 

These ways characterize different portions of politicians and populations on Earth. And indeed, they apply to any commentator. But the latter must know which category of viewpoint he currently uses to see things. And he should lift himself above them and try to make a synthesis.

 

As stated above, both frameworks are legitimate. It is okay that JD Vance views rigid old Europe with contempt. It is just as okay that Europeans see the current presidency in America as a disastrous attack against rule, order and power sharing. Correspondingly, I may criticize the destruction of controls of the executive. I can also praise the pragmatic approaches of an overlord. To understand what is going on and to where it is leading, we must see both political cultures.

 

 

 

What marks the difference between the mature and the declined framework is primarily the lack in the latter of respect of ideals, true politics, rules, traditions and organizations. Personal will replaces rules.

 

But despite the split between the two types of rule and viewpoints, certain goals exist which are common for them: Every country must be governed well and consistently. People should become united, and suffering be reduced.

Also for leaders without ideals and rules, these goals are important in order to strengthen and sustain their nations and their own power.

This is the common denominator which can be used to comment both mature and declined phenomena.