Moderation

 Valid for both sides

“Evil men will burn nations to the ground to rule over the ashes.”

Sun Tzu

Iran again

This post is partly a reuse and abbreviation of a far too long post from 2018 on a situation around Iran, which resembled the present.

In 53 BC the Roman politician and billionaire Crassus wanted to gain support and power by defeating the Parthian Persian Empire in Iran. He and his legionnaires marched in, but were utterly massacred. Crassus had not informed himself about the conditions. I do certainly not claiin that there is a close similarity between the deeds of Crassus then and Trump now, just point to the importance of knowledge before major military actions.

One may gain a deeper understanding of developments in the Middle East by seeing the present period as a revival of the Oriental modernity from roughly 750 to 1070. The modernity of a civilization is a period of about 300 years occurring after the classical period. In the Greco-Roman civilization it was around 330 to 30 BC, in the first Chinese, it was around 530-220, in the Oriental as said 750-1070 and in our case, the Western civilization 1789 to roughly 2100. These periods are characterized by rationalism, atheism, revolutions,violence, political ideas, pluralism and wars.

The Oriental modernity was filled with politico-religious thought and parties, conflicts and insurrections and revolutions of an almost unbelievable extent. In fact the modernity of this civilization was one of the most revolutionary we have seen, at least before ours.

Since 1800 the influence and expansion of our civilisation has destabilised the for centuries dormant peoples of the Orient. It has awoken resistance and energised and thus revitalised the long dead modernity. During the last 200 years we have seen numerous major and minor upheavals beginning with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Insurrections, revolutions, reactionary movements etc. strongly resembling what we saw 1000 years ago. A reawakening of a modernity

Syria and Iraq and Iran

Under the Baathist parties or rather dictators, Saddam Hussein and the Assads, Iraq and Syria may be seen as revived Muʿtazilite or rationalist states. Politics and religion were intertwined, but the will of God concerning correct government could be deduced through reason and political ideas. Until the US invasion and the Arab Spring.In the Oriental modernity centuries ago the areas from Lebanon to Afghanistan were some of the most violent in the world, torn by civil wars, insurrections and revolutions. Myriads of rulers and politico-ethnico-religious groups and parties fought each other. With the revitalisation of the old modernity, these areas have tended to revert to a comparable condition. Old groups become repoliticised, and new conflicting groups emerge in a similar pattern. The Baathist rules in Iraq and Syria prevented open conflicts. So did the Shah and the Ayatollahs in Iran. But with the removal and weakening of the dictatorships, chaos returned in both Iraq and Syria in the form of fights between the many groups.Trump has introduced extreme sanctions and now war against Iran and demands that the country surrenders completely. Knowing that a such surrender is ruled out, the plan can only be to worsen the crisis of Iran and thereby provoke a revolution.

But even if possible, why should a regime-change in Iran be more smooth than the ones in Iraq, Syria and Libya? The removal of a strong government in Teheran could like in Syria and Iraq set free conflicts between politico-ethnico-religious groups. And there can be many. The country is today again like in the very chaotic modernity 900 years ago filled with groups of different ethnicity, religion and political adherence and viewpoints. To these comes the dimension of degree of Westernisation. Iran has one of the most heavily Westernised upper/middle classes in the Middle East and at the same time very strong anti-western feelings in other parts of the population. This adds to the many other antagonisms. Also, Iran is an extremely ethnically diverse country, more than most others in the Middle East. Thus, there are many antagonisms. Open conflicts may break out if the central power weakens or disappears.The conflicts could be on a scale which in the worst case would make those in Syria look like a picnic and create huge streams of refugees (Iran has a common border with Turkey). This would certainly not bring stability to the Middle East and less terror to the World. 

Reducing expenses, suffering and wars

For contributing to world peace I would like to nominate the Chinese 

President Xi Jinping

for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The colossal investments in renewable energy in China will spare the atmosphere for large amounts of carbon dioxide. It corresponds to opening the windows in a house which for whatever reason is getting overheated.

Such efforts will benefit not only China, but all nations. It will reduce the risks resulting from deteriorating habitats, rising sea levels and failing agriculture. 

Whether we like it or not, we all live in the same house. If we do not open the windows we will see famine, wars and large northward displacements of people. No domes exist which can stop both glowing heat, extreme weather events, rising sea levels and huge streams of climate refugees. Streams which will dwarf the already now pressing immigration problem. And nothing can prevent the unimaginable spendings, which will be needed to adapt to the deteriorating conditions. 

Thus, windmills and solar panels will limit the threatening conflicts and wars over the dwindling resources. Conflicts which will destabilise the relations between the great powers and increase the tensions between them to dangerous levels.

For these reasons, President Xi would be an obvious candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Stupor Mundi

Stupor Mundi

The Astonishment of the World

This was the epithet of the midieval Emperor Frederick II, who ruled the Italo-German “Roman” Empire from 1220 to 1250. 

He was not understood by his contemporaries because he was many centuries ahead of his time. In fact he looks like somebody from the Age of Enlightenment, rational, scientific and tolerant. A very early precursor of modernity.

Now, we have another Stupor Mundi, also ahead of his age. Often looking like somebody from after the end of modernity. He is ahead in two senses. In one year he has moved the United States decades ahead into the internal chaos and autocracy which is typical for the final decades of a modernity and into the accompanying international hegemony. I have earlier, in the post “The Second American Revolution” tried to explain this by assuming that culturally, America was already there and just needed a catalyst, Donald Trump. But this achievement of one man is nevertheless astonishing whether you embrace it or hate it.

In the other sense this man points far into the future. As many have seen, he acts and looks increasingly like an emperor. Some may think that he is just a passing narcissistic anomaly. But in fact he is a prophecy about things to come. On the general level, almighty hereditary rulers will be the norm in the world empires from about 2100. They may be termed e.g. Suppreme President, but they are de facto emperors.

In the specific sense Donald Trump looks a bit like a certain type of future emperors. A type we could encounter around 2160, i.e. a type which the Romans experienced in the corresponding time ~ A.D. 40. 

The appearance of Donald Trump in our age is indeed astonishing. He shows what awaits us in the whole world or most of it.

 

Greenland

 The Recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize is chosen by the Nobel Committee in Norway, the country which started the close relations  between the Nordic countries and Greenland.

Time is running out for smaller nations

 Borders between spheres

 

Our civilisation is presently in the end-phase of the period of Warring States, which always accompanies modernities of civilisations. Through confrontations, wars and imperialism the countries and superpowers of the world are heading for the final unification and subordination under one, two or three empires. This is our destiny. The path toward and the shaping of this imperial order are decided through conflicts, wars and suffering. But the harm must be kept at a minimum.

 

I have earlier argued that in order to preserve stability and peace in the world, there must be clear mutually agreed borders between the spheres of interest of the superpowers. There can be different borders depending on whether we talk about politics, economy, IT or military. Most conflicts arise because of disputes over such spheres. Thus as said, the limits of the spheres must be fixed and respected. Of course, a such agreed arrangement cannot be forever. Sometimes it will need to be adjusted and revised as the balance of strength changes. Such changes often result through confrontation, but the duration and stability of the peaceful periods should be maximized.

 

This is not an arbitrary claim. It is self-evident that suffering through conflicts and wars must be kept as low as possible. To ensure this it may be necessary to limit the independence of smaller countries, either 1) by being controlled by a big power or 2) by them uniting to a block and become a big power themselves. These are the only possibilities; it is the choice faced by all medium and small countries. In both cases, their independence will become reduced. If you because of outdated small-nation nationalism refuse uniting, you will be subjugated from abroad instead.

 

To uphold stable borders between the spheres of the dominating powers, smaller nations must be prevented from disruptingg the demarkation lines. This goes for any strategically important countries anywhere on Earth, but especially for countries near the geographical border between the spheres of the big.

 

If superpowers cannot agree on an exact border in a part of the world, a less stable, but acceptable solution is to allow buffer states between them, states which are semi-independent subsidiaries of the big. Officially, they may be neutral or allied to one of the superpowers, but with guaranties to the opposing power. The behavior of such border states is crucial for the stability of the relations between the big and these states must be carefully guided. Generalized, this applies to all smaller countries situated geographically or strategically between superpowers.  Based on present and past experience it is obvious that without agreed delimitations between spheres, intermediate and small countries can pose a major threat to peace in the world. Conflicts often arise from competition for control over them.

 

For the United States and China there are two major comfrontation lines, where clear borders between the spheres are needed.

1) the economic spheres in Latin America. Here conflicts over the influence in countries are likely to multiply. And as we see in the case of Venezuela such conflicts can escalate and become military.

 

2) Even more dangerous are the political and the military spheres in the vast ocean between the coasts of the powers. The island-countries Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines destabilize the relation between the two superpowers with irresponsible and provoking statements from populist politicians.

 

Situated between America and Russia, Europe contains countries from both the present global civilisation in the west and countries in the emerging East European Civilisation in the east. Ordinary political conflicts and the frictions between the two civilisations and the resulting political decisions determine our destiny.

 

Europe may be viewed and analyzed by seeing it as divided into four slices or zones from west to east. Slices with differences in politics, culture and civilisation:

 

1} West and South Europe.

2} Central and North Europe.

3} The western parts of East Europe.

4} Countries bordering on Russia.

 

Internal conditions in and the relations between the slices decide internal and external politics and the shape of present and future Europe.

 

The countries in West and South Europe are strongly affected by the global political decline with its polarization and populism.

The countries in Central and North Europe are the most mature parts of the continent.

The countries in the Western parts of East Europe are politically declined like those in the West and South. This is also the case for the countries bordering on Russia, but here an animosity toward Russia is logical. Like Russia, the two parts of East Europe belong to the East European Civilisation and share culture and internal political tendencies. This area is not a unitary cultural block. Its nations are in transition phase from being dominated from our civilisation to emancipating themselves and finding their own eastern identity.  Furthermore, as we move eastwards, this identity is stronger and stronger because the cultural influence from west is weaker. This culminates in Russia.

 

The sketched divisions of Europe from West to East add to the internal divisions, which rise everywhere, especially in the politically declined parts. Tackling the fragmentation and uniting the very disparate four zones is a challenging task. But a first step is to see not only the problem of populism in the countries, but especially to realize the differences along the west-east axis from the Atlantic coast to Ukraine. These differences are not trivial, but very deep.

 

If it succeeds, Europe may become a superpower of its own. Rest-Ukraine could be a buffer-state toward Russia. The UK and Canada could be buffer states toward America.

 

If it does not succeed, the whole of Europe will become a buffer-zone between America and Russia. Sliced up and ruled.

 

 

Bravo Mr. Trump!

Brillant tactics

Powerful intervention

Great achievement! 🕊️