Four models for Ukraine

Four models for Ukraine

It is getting increasingly annoying to watch the Ukrainian crisis. Its handling from the outside has from the start been marked by amateurism. And this continues today from all sides. Nobody seems to know what to do. Even though they do support different sides, it is not true that Obama, Merkel or Putin are plotting in deliberate ways to take over or invade Ukraine. All have talked themselves into positions difficult to escape and promised sanctions and actions which they dare not implement. All are in reality bewildered.


At least the following 4 models are logical:

1) Whole state Western dominance
Not viable. This is the present situation. It has been brought about partly by the one-sidedness of the EU. That it does not work is obvious: unrest, violence and separatism as seen in the votes n Eastern Ukraine. There is no doubt that Russia has contributed actively to the unrest. But it would be an error to think that without this factor everything would be fine, and the model would work. Too many Russian speakers would still resist. Even if some parts in the East split of, there will still be too many Russian-oriented people left in the country to be dominated. Continued unrest would follow.

2) Whole state Eastern dominance
As originally favored by Russia. It clearly did not work either. This is impossible now aswell. It would be the reverse of the present situation with the same result. The leaving of Crimea which has reduced the proportion of Russian speakers will also make this model less possible. The more areas separatists or Russia take away, the more Western dominated the rest of Ukraine will be.

So none of the above whole state solutions are viable. The two parts of the population are like two peoples. As said in earlier posts they come from different cultures or even civilizations. In a country with two distinct worlds one world can not just be subdued or assimilated.

What about the splitting of Ukraine into an Eastern and a Western state?

3) Two states
This may sound ideal as the two halves seem so incompatible. But where to put the border? The populations live so intermingled that there is no national border. This means that ethnic cleansings would be necessary. I will return to this below.

4) Balanced whole state
The aggreement from just before the pro-Western forces took over in Kiev, was of course the beginning of a such plan. The balanced state solution would have been difficult to implement, but it would have been the ideal if we had wanted to avoid the conflict and violence seen since then. A new version of this path is also the only way out of the present chaos. But this solution has not become easier under todays circumstances. The window for this solution is closing. Hatred is rising on both sides as we saw in Odessa. Both sides and their external supporters must deescalate militarily, verbally and symbolically.

Some examples of factors aggravating the antagonism:

- Julia Timosjenkos comments about killing Russian speakers were certainly not helpful and they were in an awful way carried out in the burning alive of separatists in Odessa.

- The Ukrainian goverments use of symbols from the Nazi-collaboration can only add to the fears in the East.

- Still calling this goverment fascists is absurd.

- And only seeing the Eastern separatists as terrorists is also absurd.

- The rebels shooting a city mayor in the back, torturing people and taking hostages can only increase hatred.

- The Kiev goverments use of paramilitaries and perhaps even American mercenaries works the same way.

- Russia should make no further incitements of unrest in Eastern Ukraine.

- Ukraine must stop or be forced to stop all military attacks in the East. These attacks can only aggravate the situation further.

- Both Russian and Western politicians and media ought to stop the cold war rhetoric which incites populations to black and white thinking as we saw in the embarrassing shouts against the innocent Russian girls singing in the Eurovision Song Contest.

Such factors make the balanced solution more and more difficult and should be stopped immediately. The actions carried out by Kiev also show that the planned presidential elections can NOT be regarded as a step toward the balanced whole state. Instead like the actions of the opponents they increase the antagonism. The solution with one whole balanced state must be worked out at once and quickly implemented.

If we do not act along these lines only the two states solution is left. If we let things reach this point, the World must aid with the separation to avoid variants of the uncontrolled post-Yugoslavian scenario. The present separatism in the East is the first step in an uncontrolled process. But also with an aided controlled separation scores of people may have to be moved. And the economic consequences would be enormous. Allready now the price in Dollars, Euro and Rubels for saving Ukraine is immense.


The cultural differences of course also work against the balanced whole state solution. Seeing a bearded woman winning the Eurovision Song Contest will not convince the people in Eastern Ukraine that they should join Western Europe! But the costs in human and economic terms resulting from a splitting up of Ukraine are too big. And right now the balanced whole state solution is still possible. Many Russian speakers still prefer a united Ukraine. That a united state should have large autonomy for the regions is obvious. This so much more because the country will contain people from two distinct cultures or we may say civilizations: The West and Russia.

I am convinced that the balanced whole state solution is the best for Ukraine. But it is also the best way to prevent the World from coming closer to a renewed Cold War with all its negative global consequences.

The people in Western and Eastern Ukraine can no longer be expected to reach reason on their own. A concerted action by the USA, the EU and Russia must FORCE them. The inner-Ukrainian talks planned by the OSCE are a step in the right direction. But the parties in Ukraine should not have the right to decide who of the opposite side are participating. All parties must participate.



To be more precise:
The elections planned this month are too early. The new inner-Ukrainian talks need much longer time than 10 days to reach a point where all parts of the country are ready and willing to participate in elections.

And as said. If everybody takes part in the talks, an agreement without pressure from the outside is unlikely.

The Ukrainian government denies the separatists access to the talks in Kiev. As could be expected.

Angela Merkel supports that the separatists can only participate if they renounce violence. It should be obvious that reconciliation talks without both parts can lead nowhere! And what is the difference between the separatists using weapons and the government using paramilitary groups?

Germany thus demonstrates a continuation of the naive one-sided EU-support for the pro-Western forces up to the revolution. This is a clear choice of the
Whole state Western dominance solution.

If this is the general attitude of the Western powers, and/or Russia continues its own opposite one-sidedness, civil war and ethnic cleansing are pre-programmed; we are on the way to the
Two states solution.


______________
Note
A fifth proposal letting Russia absorb the Eastern parts can be dismissed. It is not possible internationally. And Russia does not have the strength to stand against the int'l pressure if it wanted to ignore the World.

Prospects and time for compromise!

How can a new Cold War make such a big difference for the American prospects as said in the last post? Two reasons:

1) The mentioned possible Sino-Russian alliance, a true Eurasian union.

2) A new Cold War would imply or reintroduce a clear demarcation line between the blocks. Without this line, as was the case till now, the American influence has just ever increased unnoticed through IT dominance, the media in general and immense cultural radiation. Given a clear political borderline, this gradual infiltration will not go on unnoticed. This influx could therefore actively be limited in the part of the world dominated by the competing powers. Even though this limitation is difficult in an already globalized world, it may succeed to a certain extent, and at least there will be a more conscious awareness about the influx. Alternatives in IT and culture will be put up, in the cultural sphere perhaps inspired by Orthodox Christianity and Confucianism?

In conclusion the end fight will be much more confrontational and carried out in the open (but probably not in a directly military way) instead of being a gradual proces of infiltration.

BUT the scenario described in this comment as a possible result of the Crimea crisis, is an extreme one. In the globalized and interdependent world it is more likely that we will end somewhere between the present condition and the described extreme scenario.

Also no matter the possible gains in territory and global power for Russia, the price for the whole of the world including Russia in terms of economy and imternational cooperation is too high. Putin should refrain from officially annexing Crimea and indeed from going further. It would be completely irresponsible. It is time for compromises.

There is probably also a limit for Chinese support. After thousands of years with frequent insurrections, the very historically minded Chinese will not risk damaging the economic prospects through a new Cold War for fear of social unrest.

Be careful!!

Update on the Crimea analysis

Right now it would seem as if the hawks in America have taken command of the public, political and government opinion towards Russia.

This opinion is guided by a typical American combination of lack of updated knowledge of the world outside with the will to power and domination. People think as if the Cold War still was a fact. As if the USSR had not lost and Russia had not been humiliated by loosing large territories inhabited by Russian speakers.

 

A comparison between Russia and Putin with the USSR and its Communist leaders is out of proportion. And comparing Putin with Hitlerr is simply grotesque! Nazi Germany was acting aggressively as part of an unlimited expansion. Russia is acting defensively in reaction to the West in a political and cultural sense threatening to take over a directly neighboring country housing an important naval base. The situations would be more comparable if a weak and defensive Germany had occupied Heligoland, because the UK had aided the Frisian islands to independence after WW1 -Germany keeping its naval base on Heligoland - and then supported an anti-German revolution here. And certainly Putin is not a Nazi or even a Stalinist or a Communist!

Of Course the Americans are cheered by West European idealists and East European countries wanting revenge for Soviet dominance.

No matter what possible economic and energy delivery considerations lie behind, the cautious among the European attitudes is now to be applauded. 

If it is really the case that the official American policy and actions are now ruled by the right wing, then this could risk being a crucial turning point, perhaps the most important international development since the fall of the USSR, a turn to the far worse what concerns world relations.

It could herald the beginning of an era of high international tensions and conflict setting us decades back. Russia and China could become allied more closely in response to exaggerated Western or rather American pressure and arrogant belief in its right to rule the rest of the world. A new Cold War between the West and an alliance of Russia and China could follow. A fight between military and economic giants through proxy- and internet wars.

I have earlier stated that the USA is about to win the end fight in the Western civilization. But opposed to Russia and China in a united front, this is by no means obvious!

_________

Also for the here and now the consequences could be difficult to contain with the economic interdependencies in the globalized world. No one can afford sanctions and the resulting trade wars.

And what about the ISS?!

Everybody, also Putin should caution before we get so far. A de facto completely independent Crimea nominally staying within the Ukraine may be the best solution.

Crimea

Of course the EU and the USA should critisize Russia for its actions in Crimea. But except for some fools in Europe and some hawks in America this criticism should be ritual only. Fortunately sudden economic considerations with respect to trade with Russia force the fools to react cautiously! The major problem may be US republicans who still live in the Cold War. They react like the Europeans in strong condemnation of Putin, but do it because of power interests and not the idealism of the Europeans.

The fact is that the difference between the former Yugoslavia and the Ukraine is minimal. In both cases the same magnitude of heterogeneity. Both had or have the same internal political distance between pro-Western and anti-Western political forces. Like Yugoslavia the Ukraine has a similar mixture of ethnicities and religions: Catholics, quasi-Catholics, Ukrainian Orthodox,Russian Orthodox and Moslems. And what may be most important: In both countries there was or is a division line between two different cultures or civilizations. In Yugoslavia Oriental vs Western, in the Ukraine Russian vs Western.

In Yugoslavia NATO did not hessitate to assist the division along such lines. Of course the Ukrainians have not commited the same genocide and ethnic cleansing as the Serbs, but still the divisions in this country are strong enough to allow a splitting up.

The Western powers should let Russia aid Crimea to independence from the Ukraine. This peninsula has always been Russian and was only by accident given to the Ukraine in Soviet times. It has the only major Russian naval base to the South. What would the Americans do if a left-wing Ecotopia in the west broke away with all American naval bases along the Pacific coast?

Russia has already been pressed too much with the breakup of the USSR loosing large areas inhabited by Russians.

The West would be well advised not to press Russia further. Let it get Crimea. Pressed more there is a danger of a real new Cold War. A Russia with its back against the wall could become very strong in a desperate defensive resistance.

And Russia would be well advised to be satisfied with Crimea. Taking more would give uncontrollable international tensions and also reduce the proportion of Russian-speakers in the Ukraine and thus reduce the chance of Russia later getting more control over the rest of the Ukraine as the mood here changes for economic and cultural reasons.

Fuck the EU!

Fuck the EU!

This eloquent sentence spoken by an American diplomat gives rise to a few comments.

After WW 1 the American president Wilson was mocked by the European winning powers for his naive idealism. 

Nevertheless policies like this were applied in the Balkans creating unnatural  countries of a Western type, which did not correspond to the nations on the ground. The later consequences were clear, not least in the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Today the roles are reverted. Now the Americans mock the Europeans for their naive idealism. This idealism has from the start guided the actions of the EU towards the Ukraine: one-sided support for the pro-Western people in the western part of the former Soviet republic. No doubt this has aggravated the situation by giving the opponents of the pro-Russian president Yanukovych the impression that they represented a large majority and strengthening their resolve and resistance. Thereby the confrontation was prolonged and worsened.

Right now the EU policy would seem to have succeeded. The president has fallen. The parlament in Kiev is dominated by the opposition. Western style democratic reforms are being decided.

But this success is only apparent. It is a result of the weakness and incompetence of the president. Oscillating between giving in and using excessive violence. Half of the country is still Russian oriented and opposed to the EU. The people here just had the bad luck of being represented by an incompetent leader. The victory of the pro-Western forces will not last. Both because of their lack of support in the East and because the economy in the Ukraine is so bad.

The European success is a pyrrhic victory. Keeping the pro-Western parties on top will demand enormous economic aid, because much of the drive for reform stems from a desire for better life circumstances. The EU cannot afford this and certainly not give it quickly enough to make a difference for the people in the country. Therefore the East will stay opposed and Russian-oriented. The deep divisions will continue. So the EU "success" will do more damage than good. Instead of supporting the opposition it would have been better to try to unite the parties.

Therefore we can still say: 

Fuck the EU!

Besides ignoring the internal forces in the Eastern Ukraine, it is also hopelessly naive to ignore Russia. Russia has legitimate interests and it has a large influence in the Ukraine. It can and certainly will effectively sabotage a solution where the pro-EU people dominate in Kiev.

The Ukraine is and will stay the major battlefield for the conflict between East and West. And if 

1) the economic advantage of joining the West is not forthcoming,

2) democracy in the western culture is declining, thus loosing its attraction, before it develops in the Ukraine, where already now also opposition politicians are often corrupt (see the posts "The Decline of Politics" + Int'l aspects ..."), and

3) in the longer run it is correct that Russia is the seat of a new emerging high culture on the rise, a culture or civilization which has other values than Western democracy and which also covers the Ukraine,

then it is by no means evident that the pro-Western side in the Ukraine will continue to receive the support of the population.

Just like the Americans are annoyed over the EU, the Romans were irritated over the Hellenist powerless countries who with their clumsy policies towards for example Maccabeans and Parthians caused large areas to be lost to the east. And who created chaos which forced the Romans to intervene.

More generally we saw Roman contempt for the weak and ineffective Greeks and Hellenists, a contempt turning to ruthlessness and direct control. Much of this repeats itself today in the relations between the Americans and the Europeans.

The Romans would have said:

Fuck the Hellenists!

The European Sung Dynasty

In Europe  the governing circles seem to have a naive view and handling of the things important for the relations to the outside world.

Even though being part of and embracing the globalized world in the economic sphere, the Europeans seem to be unaware of or close their eyes to the question of power and dominance in the world.

China in the Sung Dynasty (960 - 1279)  was also 'globalized in an economic and even demographic way. It had vast trade with most of East and South East Asia and the whole Moslem world. And many immigrants came from these parts of the world. At the same time policies were extremely humane, open, benevolent, peaceful and wise in internal matters. In fact this modernity was one of the most humane and peaceful in world history. Cultural activity like artful painting was a main interest. In political affairs there were non-violent open political discussions between the two leading parties the Conservatives and the Reformists. At the same time the Sung politicians were sadly unaware of the threat from the real powers in the vicinity. In 1126 Tungusic peoples took the northern territories, and in 1279 the Mongolians took the rest of China.

Even though the situation then and now differ both in the context and the prospect (the Americans are not barbarian Mongolians, and Sung was more centralized than is the EU), the situations are comparable. The Europeans behave much the same way as the Chinese in the Sung time: internally humane and wise, externally naive and weak. Their countries may therefore face a similar destiny: Being swallowed by stronger powers.

In the last post "The USA or multiple powers?" I have already pointed to the rising American dominance. This seems not to be resisted or even noticed by the Europeans, who just let it happen without realizing the consequences for the European position and influence in the world. This lack of understanding of events and lack of counteraction is naive and will in the end cause loss of the rest of independence. In other cases European policies are more directly self-destructive. Here just a couple of specific examples of this:

In the field of fossil fuels energy supplies are these years being revolutionized by shale gas and oil. This development is making the USA a giant producer of gas and oil. And Europe? Here this technology is being blocked by environmental concerns. It is clear that a such policy will be of great relative disadvantage to Europe, even though it may be of advantage to the environment.

In a similar manner concerns for global warming are disturbing Europe's economic recovery and growth, while the USA and China don't really care. The environment and warming is of crucial importance, and for these reasons the whole world ought to do like the EU to save us all in the long run. This would be the morally right thing to do. But from the viewpoint of the here and now balance of power and relative economic strength the European policy is harmful to the Old Continent.

Denmark's policy towards Greenland is another example. This European country is willing to give Greenland total control over its territory and let it gain independence. It would be just 50.000 people with an immature political system having control over vast resources in over 2 million square kilometers and perhaps even the North Pole?! This area would be impossible to surveil and defend without foreign armed forces and perhaps mercenaries. In order to profit from the resources under the surface, the local politicians will not be able to resist the temptation to give rights to exploitation of every possible mineral, oil etc. to the Chinese, Russians and indeed the Americans. The ressources cannot be accessed without large numbers of foreign workers. No doubt Greenland will be an American colony filled with a large majority of American and Chinese miners and other personnel and guarded by American troops. Europe will lose resources and the Arctic will be filled with pollution!
_______


The world would be a far better place if all major powers on the int'l scene had the same consideration as European countries for the environment and the same respect for small nations. But the world does not work this way. It does not respect idealistic and moral or even environmentally correct policies. They are perceived as weakness. The big countries are not good and benevolent. They will seize every chance to make gains in ressources, trade and power.  Europe will be overwhelmed by stronger countries. Like the Sung Dynasty was overwhelmed by the Mongolians from the North, while they thought they could enjoy eternal arts, peace and reason.

Despite some recent anger over the NSA nobody in Europe seems to relize what is happening before their eyes. And if some politicians do, they don't seem to have the will, energy or guts to resist.

Europe could no doubt be strengthened significantly, if the EU was centralized and run like Germany, but with due consideration given to the weak economies in Southern Europe. The old continent would benefit from this economically. It is also a precondition for greater European political strength. But it is not enough. As long as the very sympathetic, civilized idealism is combined with ignorance of power or just lethargy, the non-economic weakness will stay the same.
_______


Under the globalized and open Chinese Sung Dynasty and even more under the following yet more global (caesarian) Mongol dynasty (1279), China was flooded by foreigners like Marco Polo and many others from all around Eurasia. This gave rising opposition from the Chinese population, which culminated in the national Ming Dynasty (1368), which in its narrow isolationism stagnated completely. Now the anti-global attitudes of the population had become official policy.

The reactions from the European populations can be compared with the reactions in the Chinese population before Ming. Contrary to the leading strata parts of the populations of European countries are reacting with resentment or directly aggressively to globalization and the intrusions from the outside world like Moslem immigrants and even the EU. As these parts of the populations are also voters, right wing populists gain representations in the parliaments. Also some "normal" politicians take such anti-immigrant or anti-EU views, see "The Decline of Politics".

The old Chinese parallels show that isolationism may not be the best reaction to global influence. Being conquered from abroad may indeed be perceived as bad, but just closing all physical and mental doors can contribute to stagnation.


So we have two equally dangerous tendencies in European politics:
1) Naive ignorance of the importance of external forces hungry for power.
2) Closing the doors for everything from abroad.

On the other hand, what is good about European policies are exactly the moral, benevolent, humane and environmentally right decisions. The ideal would be if such policies were combined with power to force them through! Appeals and good examples are not enough to transform the world into a better place. Goodness must be enforced by force.

If you are only strong, you are bad.
If you are only good, you will die.
You must be good AND strong.
Only this way can goodness prevail.
______


Fortunately the Americans and the other real powers today are not only strong and bad. Obama shows that you can both be strong and have a certain measure of good and humane ideals. Of course this should not be a monopoly for Democrats!


If the Europeans or the UN do not have the strength to bring pax for the world, somebody else must, be it the Americans or the Chinese.

The USA or multiple powers?

Many find it difficult to follow my picture of us being in a Warring States period bound to end with the victory of one country, probably the USA, before 2100. All seems quite peaceful. Instead of the USA taking over I hear fanciful ideas of the power being in the hands of IT giants like Google or Apple. Or the on the surface more plausible sounding theory of a multipolar world with a series of powers. In this post I will give some arguments.


NO WARRING STATES ?!
The impression that this is no warring states period stems from an egocentric viewpoint. We see the world from a narrow point in time and space:

- The modernity as a whole from 1789 has been extremely violent also in our rich part of the world. Just look at the two World Wars.

- In the poor world there still is terribly much war and violence. Syria, Congo, South Sudan!

- The risk of self annihilation, the Terror Balance has since WW 2 forbidden wars.

- Wars in the rich world have therefore shifted toward the electronic world and the media n a broader sense.

- Another factor is that modern wars in a strict military sense are too expensive to be fought.



NOT JUST ONE POWER ?
Why should we be any closer to a dominance of one major power than in the cold war? After all we now have about the same number of powers or even far more some would say. But this view is also the result of a kind of illusion.

We are much closer to the total dominance of one major country. I want to argue that this must be gauged in the military sphere yes, but even more in other spheres. De facto the Americans are already close to being the rulers of the world as a whole. Here a number of examples and arguments:


GENERAL POINT
- One thing which has brought about the illusion that the dominance of the superpowers is diminishing, is that after WW 2 the European countries and the rest of the war stricken world were so destroyed and in ruins materially and economically. This situation gave the USA and the USSR an unnatural extreme relative advantage. This situation was of course bound to change with the economic growth in Europe and the rest of the world. This development has created the wrong impression of a gradual relative reduction in American power. The Russians of course lost a lot through the fall of so called Communism. These developments are then by analysts simply extrapolated and continued into a multipolar future. But the present reality has already falsified the theory. In reality the growth in influence by for example France and the rest of Europe in the sixties and seventies was just a return to the real level of power balance after these countries had regained their natural strength. Since then the American dominance has just increased



MILITARY
- The last phases of the end fight in the West are not fought militarily. If at all, then only through proxy wars. This means that the military dominance of the big powers is not perceived clearly. But the USA represents a very large proportion of the Worlds military expenditures. China and Russia lacking far behind. Even the big powers of yesterday, the UK and France mostly rely on American aid when they make military operations abroad. But as I argue, strict military force may be important, but of secondary importance today.

- The  USA still seem more and more willing to simply occupy third world countries like Iraq and Afghanistan if they constitute an imagined or real problem. If as often today the price in dollars is too big, there is no hesitation to use drone attacks or other limited military means without the permision from the involved countries.


CULTURE
 - To take the other extreme, that is the sphere of ideas, I have already commented on the total cultural dominance from the USA, see 'Ils sont fous ces Americains'. Here I will just mention a few examples. We are all filled with and use American phenomena like films,TV series, Facebook, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Disney, Apple, Halloween and cheerleaders. We still need baseball. This will surely follow. This cultural dominance also to a certain extent encompasses competitors like China. All this US culture of course prepares our minds to be more accepting towards other sorts of dominance. It paves the way for more submission.


RECENT DISCLOSURES
More knowledge of the American dominance has been provided by Mr. snowden. Even if not all of this may prove absolutely correct, it is still impressive:

- The NSA is spying on ordinary citizens in the USA and abroad. Metadata from many mobile phones in the world are stored.

- Also the position of almost every mobile telephone user is tracked.

- Apparently also all internet activity from almost all users in the world is registered.

- As shown recently, foreign statesmen, ambassadors, EU politicians etc. are being listened to, and other forms of their communication spied.

- Through the british vassals the Americans are also spying in hotels where foreign politicians stay.

- All the thus gained information is being used for political purposes and also economic gains in conferences and meetings.

- All this is also used for economic espionage against foreign firms competing with American companies.


FURTHER ARGUMENTS
- The Swift system for int'l financial transactions permits US control. This was accepted by the EU as a natural thing.


- The Americans highjack foreign citizens in foreign, even friendly countries and transport the prisoners in their and other countries airspace.

- US military personel are exempt from the int'l court of warcrimes.

- American agents in German airports are apparently telling the local police and other officials what to do. Like arresting people which in turn are then extradited to the USA.

- One of the worst examples is of course Morales' plane forced to land in Ausria after the Americans ordered countries like Spain and even La Grande Nation France to deny overflying.

- The Scandinavian countries and not least their populations were earlier champions of  critical  views towards American behavior in the world. Now as parts of the Nine Eyes and other written and unwritten agreements and the servile attitude from politicians the Scandinavians like the English look like loyal American servants. They behave like the pro-Roman Atallide rulers of the state of Pergamon who in the second century BC bequeathed their country to the Romans.

All the above examples of US dominance abroad may seem natural to American citizens. But imagine the reaction if the Chinese or whoever did all these things to the USA!


IT POWER
- The whole world is heavily dependent on computer technology, and this is provided almost exclusively by US companies - Microsoft, Google, Apple etc.

- These companies have no hesitation in following all our electronic activities for commercial purposes.

- But the companies themselves are controlled legally and tapped electronically by the NSA, which in this way spies us all around the globe!

- One of the biggest IT providers for customers like countries and their administrators is the American firm CSC. This company seems to have very strong links with the NSA. This gives this agency unprecedented possibilities to follow the behavior of administrative systems everywhere. The CSC has even been involved in the transportation of abducted foreigners in its airplanes!


CONCLUSIONS AND OTHER VIEWS
At least after the recent disclosures nobody should be in doubt, that the Americans are the main rulers in the world. Not only are they stronger than their competitors China and Russia. But their influence is also unprecedented in newer history. Even China is at least culturally partially dominated as well.

La Grande Nation is submitting. Its economic decline just accelerates this. Further downgradings from the US rating agencies will finally bring it on its knees. La Force de Frappe has become a paper tiger. The British have been true servants for a long time by their own willed submission. The countries in the Five Eyes and Nine Eyes think themselves privileged. But they are members because they are loyal vassals!

In Europe outside Russia the only bigger country to resist is Germany. Very politically stable, economically strong and still preserving at least some of their own will and defiance.


And the multipolar world? Naive illusion! India does not become a world power by sending a satelite to Mars. The fact that the ridiculous Bollywood films have not conquered the World while the often also ridiculous Hollywood films have, talk a clear language. India simply is a too heterogenous, rigid and bureaucratic elephant. Brazil, Indonesia and Nigeria are too weak. Population size and economy alone is not enough. In the Eastern Mediterranean 2000 years ago countries like Egypt were very large in population and richness, but they were still easy prey for the Romans.

The idea that Internet companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple etc should become world powers is even more absurd than the idea of a multipolar world. As can be seen now such companies are controlled by the American state. And as these companies control a large part of the Internet all over the World this gives the American state unprecedented powers.

The last battlefields of the present Warring States period in the West are media and the Internet. Here the fight is for the hearts of the world population. Which system looks most attractive? The USA, China or Russia? Or the EU? Here the NSA in collaboration with Mr. Snowden has been most damaging to the USA. This country begins to look a bit like China in level of political control. But as the Americans control so much of the world media, tne public opinion could be on their side when the recent disclosures are forgotten.

But even if this does not happen, the public opinion is not enough to decide. Were the Chinese asked who they would prefer in the original Warring States period up to 221 BC, very few would have prefered the brutal state of Qin, which nevertheless won. It was and is also a question of simple force.

The public opinion may be thought to count more today because everybody has the possibility through the Internet and other electronic media to acquire and indeed publish information and opinions. But what counts in the end is still who has the real power. And as most people seem satisfied by using the net to publish the latest babble of their child and comment  the hair cut of Justin Bieber or in the best case discuss ridiculous theories about the Americans themselves having attacked the Twin Towers, this is so much more the case (such communication will be of very limited interest to the NSA!).

But also beyond the influence on public opinion the Internet and other global forms of electronic communication and information handling, because of their use in all kinds of mental and material operations, have replaced parts of the physical world as the most important sphere.

Earlier who controlled the physical battlefield in battles or just preemptive military force in men and uquipment, now who controls the electronic battlefield, will rule the world. Earlier military capability, now Internet capability. The Chinese and the Americans will compete not so much militarily as through the public opinion and on the Internet. They are already testing each other through commando raids in the form of cyber attacks. Therefore the US control over the IT giants is so important.

In the cultural sphere as said China is also quite influenced by the USA. The end fight could be between two American/Americanized powers. But as the Chinese are not totally Americanized and are still a force opposing the USA, from another point of view China can be seen as the last defender of the European soul. Just like Carthagos Hannibal was the last defender of Hellenism against Roman dominance.

____________



As illustrated here the Americans already control much of what goes on in many aspects in many countries in the world.

To other wannabe "poles" like India, Brazil or Indonesia one could say: "the race is almost run". This partly applies to the real poles China and Russia too. To the Americans one could say: "the race is almost won"

The "almost" mostly has to do with internal American politics, as often said. A stabilizing balance and cooperation between moderate and responsible forces within the two parties with a non-isolationistic and realistic conception of the outside world is a condition for continued and growing American dominance. The new just signed budget deal could be an omen for the world. If this is the beginning of a new spirit of cooperation between of course still completing parties with radicals to the right and the left put on the sideline, the destiny of the world may have been decided: Pax Americana.

But already now the USA rules much of what happens. Once more I quote Rammstein, here alluding to the Americans prescribing the dance of 'freedom':

"Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss weiss noch nicht dass er tanzen MUSS"

(And he who does not want to dance does not yet know that he HAS to dance).