Sphere of what?

  

I have often used the concept “sphere of interest”. When I talk about dividing the world between the big powers or rather their overlords or triumvirs, the term must be nuanced considerably. We can differentiate between several types or levels or fields of interest. At least these four could be mentioned:

 

1} Sphere of economic interest.

This involves markets, investments, outsourcing of production, division of labour, exchange of raw materials etc. For a given superpower or its leader, a such sphere presently can encompass large parts of the world.

 

2} Sphere of IT infrastructure.

Partly also of IT software and hardware.

 

3} Sphere of political dominance.

 This ranges from political influence to outright overlordship.

 

4} Sphere of military presence.

 

Clearly, the geographical size of the spheres decreases from 1} to 4}. Both the spheres of economy and IT can be large. Depending on the degree of decoupling or derisking, the spheres of these types can overlap considerably, e.g. a country in South America can be economically interesting for both the United States and China. Obviously, such overlapping is not the case for the spheres of political overrule and military presence.

 

Many conflicts between big powers arise from disputes over the demarkations or borders between the sphere of interest in these four fields. As said in the previous post, it could bring a certain stability if the small and medium size countries in important parts of the world are distributed between the superpowers, and this happens along clearly defined demarkation lines, agreed upon by these powers.

 

As we have at least four fields, there must be agreement on a division line in each. Unless the decoupling is total, the spheres in the four fields should not coincide geographically. In this case the borders between the resulting super-spheres would be almost impossible to agree upon. Because one country is a part of the economic sphere of one power it does not have to be also politically dominated.

 

To conclude, in order to stabilise the globe, it can be divided into spheres on several levels, e.g. economy, IT, politics and military, and the demarkation lines between these spheres, i.e. which countries “belong to” which of the major players can be different on each level.

 

 

Wellcome back, Mr. Trump

Welcome back, Mr. Trump

Wellcome to The Age of the Overlords

 

As often said, in our civilisation we are approaching the point, where politics per se looses its importance. Ultimately, perhaps around 2100, politics on the large scale will be replaced by imperial one man-rule. Politics and democracy will continue only on the small scale in the form of handling local practical matters.

 

During a modernity, e.g. in the Greco-Roman Civilisation ca. 350 - 30 BC, in our case 1776 - 2100, politics has an extreme importance. Passionate, often aggressive and violent fights about ideas on how to build society and distribute wealth dominate. Political parties canalise these ideas. In contrast, before and after this stage politics, if we insist on using this term, is primarily a fight for power.

 

In the latest century of a modernity, politics is transformed from a mature stage to the declined stage of late modernity. This happens through three substages replacing each other, but partly overlapping:

 

In the first substage, we see a simplification and polarisation of politics combined with strong emotions. At the same time, the wish for personal power of some of the leading politicians gains in importance.

In our Second European Civilisation we entered this period around 2000. In Rome it started with the Gracchus brothers around 135 BC. In both cases there were clear warning signs already in the decade before.

 

Gradually, the trend towards personal power becomes pervasive for the leaders of political parties. The public debate may still think that it is only about politics per se, but voters are more and more focusing on and following charismatic and dominating leaders. The political and personal passions become immense.

 

In the second substage politics is more and more reduced to a simple often violent fight for personal power. We are presently taking the first steps into this period. In Rome it started around 104 BC. Trough this substage the focus on politics as such falls to zero. First, politics becomes a mere tool for the rulers. It then turns into blatant bribery of their followers.

 

But on the political scene the beginning of substage 2 may not look very different from the end of substage 1. The crucial qualitative difference is the emergence of rulers with clearly increased executive power. This is often accompanied by supporting thoughts as in our case Project 2025. This executive power soon develops into dictatorship. Also in Rome, corresponding thoughts were used to justify dictatorship.

 

In the third substage which in reality is for ever, one leader wins imperial rule.

 

As said, the Roman republic entered the first substage of polarisation and simplification with the Gracchus brothers around 135 BC and the second substage with the absolute rule of Marius 104. In our case the years are ca. 2000 and 2025 respectively.

 

The two so-called triumvirates from ca. 60 to 30 BC showed that politics had been replaced with a fight between leaders. As everybody knows, the triumvirates were personal deals between competing leading men who divided responsibilities and territories between each other. These arrangements secured coexistence and peace for some time before conflicts arose again.

 

The time of the triumvirates is generally seen as the transition from politics to the emperors. You can see this substage as the end-fight for power of the Greco-Roman Civilisation. In the Roman republic this substage started with the dictatorships of the ‘Democrat’ Marius and the ‘Republican’ Sulla 104-79. These two powerful men did not reach the triumvirate solution of dividing their world between them, probably because of the chaotic nature of their civilisation. But they nevertheless personally ruled their world. The well-known triumvirates per se started a little later. In our case the deals between competing men are likely to start already early in the substage, that is not long from now.

.

 

In many civilisations the end-fight runs between the leaders of powerful nations. This was the case in the in the First Mesopotamian, the First Chinese and the Second Indian Civilisation just to mention a few. The Roman Republic won most of the area of the Greco-Roman Civilisation before the end-fight began. Therefore, this fight was not between nations, but between leaders in one nation, i.e. the triumvirs.

 

Generalised, we may call the leaders in the substage / end-fight overlords and call the period The Age of the Overlords no matter if they are one, two, three or more and no matter if they belong to one or more nations.

 

In our case things are complicated. On the one hand we do have our own Rome in the form of America which has a dominating power in the world. On the other hand, its power is not as totally dominating as Rome’s was. This means that in our Second European Civilisation the overlords or triumvirs can both be leaders of strong world powers like China, Russia and America AND leaders of the parties IN the latter.

 

As said, we are presently entering this Age of the Overlords. Donald Trump is an overlord. But such leaders do not have to be new persons entering the competition between overlords. It is the nature of politics and political constellations which change. This furthers the dominance of men focussed on their own power like Donald Trump and Julius Caesar. Leaders from before the period can continue to rule, but they will be drawn into this new type of power-play.

 

Still, the old type of leaders may find it difficult to understand and adapt to the new type of rulers. More and more, leaders of not only Republicans, but also of Democrats and the leaders of the world powers will be of the new type.

 

What characterises this new type of leaders is not necessarily a lack of long-term strategy. Rather, it is a lack of respect for and obligation toward ideologies, established policies, rules and traditions. This concerns their own parties and their voters who will just endorse everything their beloved leader does no matter if it goes against ideas which he had yesterday. It also concerns the ‘deep state’ which is a barrier against the personal will of the leader and must be broken down. Finally, the disrespect of traditions and obligations greatly affects foreign relations. Long standing formal alliances like NATO are no longer seen as holy and can be ended anytime. Obviously, the same is the case for international treaties and agreements. And not least, alliances with other big powers or rather their leaders can easily be started or ended. Often, relations between triumvirs do not last forever.

 

Of course, academics and politicians stuck in the old way of thinking from mature modernity before 2000 will lament this. They try to ‘correct’ the ‘wrong’ course. But they must adapt to the new time or be marginalised and ignored. Zeitgeist has changed. In the old optics the acts of the new type of leaders may look unpredictable and therefore erratic. But these changing acts can also be seen as pragmatic. Old frozen ideologies and conflicts and even a war may be ended in this way.

 

It is like cutting Gordian Knots instead of untangling them.

 

In the best case, the upcoming new conditions could bring a certain global détente. A negotiated well-defined partitioning of spheres of interest in crucial parts of the world between the overlords could mean stability for some time.

 

In this way, the new conditions lamented by some could have the potential to benefit humankind.

 

So

Wellcome back, Mr. Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

There ARE red lines

With the accelerating tensions between East and West over Ukraine we are moving unpleasantly close to the brink.

Naive Europeans ignorant of East European culture and feelings should be careful what they do.

This is even more the case for departing American presidents. And the consequences of permitting Ukraine to use US missiles against Russian territory risk being infinitely more devastating than those of the storming of Congress.

I never imagined that I would say this:

I sincerely hope that Donald Trump arrives in time to move humankind back from the brink of self-annihilation.

 

Russian roulette

 Don't allow ! 💥 

Great Again?

  

‘I have no need of an army, King Antiochus IV,’ said Gaius Popillius Laenas.  ‘I am Rome’. He used the end of his staff to trace a circle in the dust all the way around the Syrian King.

 

‘Before you step out of this circle, King Antiochus IV, I advise you to think again’.

In response the king stopped his attack on Egypt.

Adapted from Colleen McCullough.

 

 

Quote 2

“the horrible attack on israel, much like the attack on ukraine, would never have happened if i were president – zero chance!”

Donald Trump

 

The first quote shows the correct estimation by the leading Roman politicians about the power of their country.

The next quote is grotesquely bragging and illustrates a complete lack of knowledge about the reel power of the United States and the rest of the World.

 

These two quotes underline what I have so often written: In the Greco-Roman Modernity the Roman Republic was in  an all-dominant position . Even a Roman politician without an army could command a king to stop an invasion of a third country, and he was obeyed. In our present modernity which corresponds to the Greco-Roman, a US presidential candidate thinks he is in the same position as Laenas. With his mere presence as leader of America he can prevent and end major conflicts and wars around the globe.

 

At the same time he wants the United States to withdraw military forces and guarantees from strategic parts of the World, not least Europe and even East Asia. The net result of these illusions and policies will be a reduction of America’s sphere of interest and influence: the attempt to command and calm the World will utterly fail. The withdrawal from strategic regions will remove the deterrence against the  expansion  of America’s rivals. Removal of US guarantees to it’s allies will open the field further.

 

Thus, if a renewed presidency of Trump holds its promises , the World will be changed some years from now. China and Russia could dominate Europe, East Asia, Africa and perhaps even America’s backyard, Latin America, an obvious part of the sphere of the United States.

 

Supreme Court undermines the Constitution

  

The US Supreme Court has decided that a president i.e Trump, has partial immunity and can not be judged and punished for official acts committed during his or her presidency.

 

As Biden has stated, America is not a monarchy. Yet. A century from now it will be, if our civilisation follows the path taken by earlier ones. It is unlikely that the title will be “King” or “Emperor”. A more likely title will sound like a continuation of the republic, probably “President” with a magnifying or glorifying epithet. The leader with this title will not only enjoy criminal immunity, but have absolute power.

 

Therefore the decision from Supreme Court is well ahead of its time. After some decades a such decision will be adequate, because then politics per se will be replaced by the will to personal power. Then, one person will be able to unite and represent the whole nation and even a large part of the World.

 

But at the present time granting of immunity is extremely premature. It can only contribute to the division and polarisation of politics and people in America. As always, power shifts between the parties. But because of the polarisation, the ensuing alternating political decisions and implementations from the two sides will become more and more diametrically opposite and irreconcilable. These attempts to radically turn the country 180 degrees around with every shift of power will cause chaos and tear the nation apart. Like in the precedence set by Donald Trump, a ruling party or president can be tempted to do whatever to prevent the opposite side from being elected, and if elected, from seizing power. This both to avoid the radical change of policies which would follow, and simply to stay in power.

 

The politicians and presidents will employ ruthless and even unlawful means to enforce their policies and to achieve and conserve their power. The ruling by the Supreme Court giving immunity for official acts removes a boundary for abusive and criminal behaviours used by the political parties and their leaders. By facilitating such behaviours the Court increases the strain on the Constitution. The time when this finally fails is now approaching even faster.

 

In fact immunity for presidents is so radically new that it can be seen as an amendment to the Constitution. The decision from Supreme Court, nominally the protector of the Constitution, clearly violates the spirit of it, yes it violates the spirit of all democratic constitutions since the Age of Enlightenment, i.e. in our modernity. Thereby it points to a future with absolute rulers after the final breakdown of pluralism, public debate and shared rule. But we are certainly not there yet.

 

 

Decline and Power

 It is no secret that I have had a weak hope that our civilisation might avoid the rapid degeneration experienced by our predecessors. I have argued that despite its numerous crises, the Song Dynasty could inspire us in this. But nothing suggests that we will alter our corse. Thus, for now I will lay aside my utopian wishes for a prolonged  modernity and a postponement of our decline. I will only look at the facts.

 

As said earlier, both division of countries and organisations, populist politicians, polarisation and indeed more and more authoritarian and autocratic regimes are parts of the decline. But these possibilities or symptoms per se have different consequences for the survival and power of countries. And these consequences further depend on the specific handling and implementation of policies. Context, especially demography is yet another crucial variable. And not least, the Consequences depend on the qualifications and the durability of rule of groups and their leaders. In the following we will look briefly at the effects of the manifestations of the decline in five nations and unions.

 

As usual, I will focus on the biggest players. I will start reusing parts from the last post about the EU and India. The EU faces the risk of gradually becoming a failed union as populist nationalists win influence and try to change the union into a bunch of petty states. The rift between East and West Europe can only add to this development which could break the inner spine of the union. The obvious reaction to the present world situation would be if the European nations moved tight together. The populist nationalist traitors will instead divide it and thereby let it be ruled from abroad. If the Rassemblement  National wins power, then even the Franco-German CPU will be damaged.  And if Trump and a degenerated Republican Party returns to power, the EU could also begin to lose its outer skeleton. Thus all in all, for the power of the European Union the symptoms of the decline could have detrimental consequences.

 

As said in earlier posts, India is demographically and politically heterogeneous and must be ruled in a way that perhaps is authoritarian, but which should also encompass all the biggest political and religious segments of its society. For several years this  has not been the case. Instead we have seen  a narrow almost autocratic rule. This is perhaps the main manifestation of the world wide decline in India. As a result, large parts of population and politics feel left out. As said, the Moslem part could become attracted further into the civilisation in the Middle East.  Clearly, such policies will weaken the cohesion and strength of India, cf. my last post. Thus, like the EU, India’s prospects have also been diminished because of the decline.

 

Russia is a completely different case. Here we have a westernised segment of civil society which follow the course of our modernity. This segment is presently losing influence. Corresponding segments also exist in the other East European countries, and here they are bigger. But in Russia the majority of the people and politics is partly beyond the European, now global civilisation. The East European Civilisation with Russia is now in a phase where we were 1000 years ago. This is not meant as an indication of backwardness. One might also say that this civilisation owns the future. Russia has for centuries been confronted with strong powers in our civilisation. The strategy employed since Peter the Great has been and still is to build a defence segment, which is “Western” in technology, structure and function. You could say that a country from one civilisation has created a military-industrial complex in the style of another. This is necessary for a country which otherwise would be difficult to defend because in principle it is a primordial feudal world confronted with an advanced alien world in a more “developed” stage. Thus, the term “decline” is irrelevant for the real power of Russia. But as we have seen earlier in history, the present pressure from the outside seems to unite Russia and increase its resilience.

 

Let us now look at the United States and China.  Are they like the EU and India also weakened by the political decline? First the United States. Here the degeneration shows itself as a more and more chaotic fight between extremely polarised parties which even compete in influencing the judicial system and other supposedly neutral institutions. This is coupled with extreme paranoia against the other party and against foreign powers. The same happened in Rome two  millennia  ago. Obviously all this can only weaken the cohesion and power of America. As I have often said, the Romans could afford such conditions because they after the abandonment of the Hellenised East had no serious opponents. Present-day America is not in this situation. It has both China and Russia as serious competitors. The effects of the inner chaos in America can only partly be mitigated by the enormous industrial and military strength. And the  strength in these fields could also be undermined by the decline.

 

Thus, the fate of the United States is determined by a) how much its political system deteriorates. Here a period of Democrat rule slows the downward move, while Republican rule accelerates it. It is no wonder if enemies of the United States prefer a Trump presidency. The other factor which determines the fate of America is b) the strength of its foreign opponents.

 

China experiences an opposites version of the political decline: autocratic rule. Is this an advantage or a disadvantage for its power? This question is not that easy to answer. It depends on the qualities of the leader and the duration of his or her rule. If he makes mistakes, or he is too dictatorial and only represents a narrow set of opinions, society and politics can be split. This could lead to a shortening of his rule. Another important factor for the long term effects of an autocratic rule is the succession. Is the successor who inherits absolute power, a capable leader or not?

 

But also an autocratic leader can temporarily unite and strengthen China through coercion and police forces. This is the present situation. Thus, for now as opposed to America, Europe and India, China is strengthened by its manifestation of the political decline. The main explanation is that China is  more homogeneous than the EU, India and the United States. This in itself gives better cohesion and also makes the nation easier to govern even without too much force. Of course the advantage for China will last only as long as the present rule can be sustained. It can suddenly or gradually be changed by suppressed opponents. What this would mean for the power of the country depends on a) the smoothness of the change and b) what kind of rule follows. A more collective rule could possibly ensure greater sustainability and continuous growth in power of the country unless it is too lenient.

 

In conclusion, right now political decline weakens America and strengthens China. The balance shifts to the advantage of the latter. But a new political situation in China could change this for worse or for better.