Then
“It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing:
the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it,
the excellency of Carmel and Sharon.”
Book of Isaiah 35:2
Now
Gehenna
Valley of Slaughter, the smoking ash valley
A good place to rule over
Valid for both sides
“Evil men will burn nations to the ground to rule over the ashes.”
Sun Tzu
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
