Eroded valleys

The American bombing of a Syrian military base is a good example of the new way of foreign policies. Personal moods or personal needs for a certain image can cause sudden changes of policy. And the potentially farreaching consequences show the unstable or meta-stable condition we are in now.

Earlier in the more stable era, int'l policies and acts moved in what can be seen as a potential valley. With time the world was moving along the direction of this valley. The bottom was the average condition of relations between powers. Deviations were possible, but as they were movements up the slopes of the valley, they were counteracted. Therefore their effects were limited in time and magnitude. And conditions were normalized sooner or later.

If situations became sufficiently loaded with conflict, there could be major changes. This typically could happen after a build up of tensions over a longer time. The limitations of the slopes of the valley were no longer sufficient to inhibit game-changing acts and their consequences. A good example of this was the beginning of the First World War. Here a terrorist act succeeded in starting a big war which resulted in a new stable condition, but with a radically changed world. A new valley had been formed.

What constitutes the slopes of a such valley, are things like traditions, historical ancoring, cultural resources, written and unwritten mutual understandings, rules of conduct and not least diplomatic experience. Our modernity has till now been followed by these characteristics. Therefore we have moved along stable valleys only occasionally interrupted by major upheavals.

But now the characteristics are being eroded. The slopes become less steep. The inhibitions from tradition, knowledge and rules are disappearing. The predictability of the direction is lost. A change of mood can quickly lead us out of the now flat valleys into unknown territories.

This is he era we are moving into now. The Trumps, Erdogans and Le Pens can change the world over night after or without provocations. Soon anything can happen. Smaller and bigger wars on the ground and in cyberspace can suddenly start this way. The Roman world in the last century of the Republic functioned the same unstable way. Only, here the conflicts were between leaders from this one power. In our case they will be between leaders from different powers. Our triumvirates will be between such leaders.

As said, the direction of politics can change anytime into new directions, but as politics as such in the form of ideologies lose importance, the real changes will only concern who rules.



For politicians who still have a cool mind, it will take lots of patience and ingenuity to contain the consequences of the acts and changes made by erratic leaders. That even Germany supports the bombings, shows the level of appeasement judged necessary faced with an easily provoked world leader.

Après nous le déluge

In Europe too, we see strange times. In the presidential elections in France the choice is between a xenophobic anti-EU candidate, a centrist populist and a man who attacks the judicial system and accuses it of being part of a political conspiracy against him. Of course the family Le Pen is not new. New is that most major parts of the political spectrum in France have decayed.

In the Netherlands the political party with the second-biggest popular support wants to ban the Quran, and most parties use opposition against the authoritarian Turkish president or de facto dictator as a disguise for racism. The same tendency is clear in Austria, where half the population earlier voted for a right wing populist as president. Of course Erdogan answers with grotesque nazi-accusations.

Here in Denmark all the major political parties are competing openly in proposing racist measures against traumatized refugees. The minister for (dis)integration accuses them of abusing the welfare system and boasts of (almost) violating human rights conventions. Sweden has ended the more than half a century old passport-free travel between the Nordic countries and thereby divided the greater metropolitan area Copenhagen-Malmö, only to satisfy xenophobic voters. Poland continues to subdue the judges and the press.

Truly, Germany is being surrounded by politically declined neighbors. Together perhaps with Spain it may be the only mature political system left in Europe! The talk about a EU with two speeds is becoming increasingly naive. In most of the union both the population and the politicians are moving away from  the European idea. The remaining old style politicians seem to close their eyes and with few exceptions continue business as usual while the water keeps on rising.

War of Gangs

These are strange days. The destiny of the world is being determined in gang wars in the entourage around Mr. Trump. Will the United States end the cold war with Russia? Will Washington embark on a disastrous anti-Palestinian policy?

Maybe the US president and his nearest followers have acted so clumsy that he is compromised to such an extent that in reality he will be a lame duck in the time to come. Building a real power base takes more than an election victory and a few decrees. Time will show if Trump can manage this after all.

In the meanwhile he may be reduced to a powerless front figure for the Republican party. After having returned them to power he is still allowed to shout and tweet insults. It may help to satisfy the desperado voters. But that may be all he can do.

Thus the radicalized, right wing extremist, puritan and populist republican fractions could prevail. Concerning the Middle East the Republican right wing will support Mr. Trump. This is certainly no good news. Concerning Russia the anti-Putin hawks could overrule the opposite policies of the president.

So, for Russia the main advantage of the new presidency may evaporate. But the other advantage may still be real. That is the destabilization of the United States because of the declined political system. Populism, a radicalization of the two parties, mutual obstruction and contradictory incompatible legislations shifting with elections.

Trump’s decrweet on Israel

Trump’s decrweet on Israel

Mr. Trump seems already now to be ruling by tweets commanding both the industry and politicians who obey for fear of shitstorms. We can welcome the intention of the president-elect to improve ties with Russia and thus limit a threatening cold war. But this does certainly not mean that all foreign policy plans from the coming president are wise.

The announced new policies toward Israel will be a disaster. I have a few years ago in the post "The Middle East, Rome and the United States" compared the present day Middle East situation with that 2000 years ago. At that time the Romans were hated in the Eastern Mediterranean, not only because of their oppression, plundering and abuses, but also very much because of the cultural difference and opposition between the old "Western" Greco-Roman civilization and the new upcoming Oriental one. A further factor was the difference in the phase these civilizations were in. Like the present day western world Rome was in its modernity, a phase characterized by cool intellect, lack of religion and rationalism mixed with ridiculing of those not in this stage. The Oriental civilization was in its beginning early medieval period, a phase filled with very strong religious beliefs. This is where we in the Westwere around AD 1000. Both the differences between the cultures as such and the difference between the phases  and the real oppression contributed to the strong resistance of the emerging Oriental world against the Romans. Enormously important was also the fact of the pseudomorphosis. This was the phenomenon that the new civilization had to rise in an area totally culturally dominated by the Greek and Roman western culture. It had to express itself under the mighty pressure or in the forms of the Greco-Roman world. This led to a colossal anger and rage from the dominated civilization and its culture.

Today the situation is quite comparable. The old antique western civilization has vanished and has been replaced by a new, the Western European-American one. This has great cultural similarities with the old Greco-Roman predecessor, and importantly, it is also in its modernity with the same rational and superficial thinking.

Today the Oriental world is still there, but in the passed 2000 years it has passed trough its own rational modernity one thousand years ago and it has since then moved to the typical late stage of old civilizations. A phase where rationality has vaned and religion returned. Despite the difference between an Oriental world then in an early, now in a late phase, the difference between western modernity and Oriental religion is the same. And also the difference between the clashing cultures is the same. Of course now like then many people in the Middle East become westernized, but this just strengthens the resentment of the others.

And also in the total cultural and political dominance history repeats itself. The West lies heavily on all parts of the world. From this complex situation comes the mighty hatred in parts of the Middle East against the West, especially the new Romans from the United States. The Middle East then and now constitutes perhaps the most striking parallel in world history.

In addition to all this come the last barbarians, comparable to the Germanic and North African tribes at the borders of the Roman empire. Groups like ISIS represent forces beyond all civilizations, also the Oriental, but they claim a perverted misunderstood form of Islam as their foundation. Therefore the border between them and the resentment of parts of the Oriental civilization tend to be fuzzy.

Israeli policies endorsed and fueled by the coming US administration, policies directed against the Palestinians, reducing them to second rank people without rights and creating bantustans will bring more hatred, desperation and terrorism, no matter if ISIS is defeated, by the way good luck with that!

A new Intifada may start in the occupied areas. Terrorism against the Jewish state could explode. But not only the occupied areas and Gaza will be filled with desperation and hatred.  Also groups outside, and here not only hardcore terrorists will feel growing anger. Governments, and here not only in countries which are enemies of the USA will show resentment and hostility against the Americans. There will be opposition and resentment in friendly countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan  and Egypt. We could see a generalized anti-American and anti-western  sentiment rising in much of the Middle East. And of course support for barbaric groups like exactly ISIS will rise. Under Trump the Israeli government will feel encouraged to even more actions against the two-state solution and thus aggravate the situation even more.

Stopping the nuclear deal with Iran will certainly not help the situation where so many hate the United States. Wiser would it be to cooperate with Teheran and thus to support a balance of power in the Middle East - divide et impera.

The opposition from the UK government against the Obama administrations criticism of Israel shows that the UK plans to stay an American vassal state, no matter who the president is and no matter what he does.

The End of Stability

The reaction of President Obama and Hillary Clinton to the election of Donald Trump has been admirably conciliatory and mature. Especially after the numerous absurdities from Mr. Trump et al. As said "when they go low, we go high".

As I have written before, the grotesquely declined policies of Mr. Trump comes in addition to many years of decline of the Republican party. The very different behavior from the Democratic party is a good picture of the global situation. We are in a transition from Mature Modernity to Declined Modernity. In this transition period the old mature and the new declined  forces live side by side. We have both Hollande and Le Pen, both Germany and Turkey, both Obama and Trump. Seen from the point of view of Mature Modernity Trump is an absolute disaster. But of course he does not alone bring about the disaster. He embodies the decline present already. His victory may have accelerated it a few years, but it has been underway and would have come anyway.

Since his victory much has already been said on the consequences from countless experts and comments and editorials. There is no need for many repetitions here.

The victory of Trump indeed heralds the coming end of democracy as we knew it. Its final change in to rule by the mob, and what is worse: the use of the mob by demagogues and autocrats like Trump and Erdogan.

There is only one concrete advantage to be seen, and that is in the short term. Foreign policies; the relations America-Russia may improve.  The rigid habitual cold war thinking characterizing both Republican and Democrat hawks including Mrs. Clinton and much of NATO could find its end. Cooperation on Syria would may be be possible.

But in almost all other respects the new era is unwelcome. It must be deeply deplored. And we should still try to save what can be saved of the mature democratic forms of government by modifying them into more controlled forms able to avoid and control the dissolving forces. But maybe this is a naive dream  except for a few countries. For the rest of the world we should face the new reality. And not just cry over the lost paradise.

Presently we have two measuring standards. That from mature modernity and that from declining modernity. Judging from the old standards the turn to Trump, Le Pen etc. is catastrophic. From the new standard they must be judged from their acts. Are they able to maneuver in the new conditions?

This does not mean that you have to be declined to deal with the new conditions. As said elsewhere Germany and China may soon be the only pre-declined stable powers. They could be quite able to deal with the new world, but only if they adapt to the new circumstances: the threat from the mob, demagogues and foreign chaos. The risk is rigidity and lack of this adaption. But lack of any consistency and stability is equally a problem for good rule benefitting a country and its strength.

Lack of both consistency and adaptability can be detrimental no matter the era. In light of rigidity an unorthodox figure like Trump could have an advantage. But unorthodox policies must be coupled with a certain stability. In a complex world like ours too shifting measures lead to badly governed and unorganized societies.

For the USA Trump is not the biggest problem. No the really big problem is a Republican party degenerated into rigid obstructionists and opportunists and Puritan fanatics. The sum of these groups mean lack of ability to both govern and be governed. This will continue after Trump.

In the few days passed since nov. 8. Trump has shown a certain moderation. Remains to see if this will continue. Present and post-Trump Republican leaders may not show any moderation, but press on with more right wing turns.

In light of this the remarkable restraint on behalf of the Democrats may not continue. Left wing populists will demand counter-reforms and obstruction of Republican presidencies and will want retaliations. In the worst case scenario the political climate will degenerate more and more. Incongruent political measures will be implemented by shifting presidents. Effective administration and rule will be difficult. Violent upheavals will accompany politics as the big tensions within the American society are carried out in confrontations on the street. The two political wings will both fuel their own supporters and aggravate tensions further. Probably periods of personal dictatorships will appear.

For int'l relations as said the short term results could be an end to the cold war and even a US contraction of sphere of interest. The present sphere encompassing all the world until 50 nautical miles from the coasts of China and Russia were too wide to allow a consistent defense anyway.

But it is almost a law of a warring states period like the present that the global power struggle will restart. This could be from both Democrats and Republicans. And if the intra-American tensions are channeled outwards against the outer world and played out here like the Roman 2000 years ago, the world has nothing good to await. But it is equally likely that the USA will weaken itself through the internal strife. The United States is removing itself from the position it had a few years ago when it looked like a gradual takeover of the world through culture and Cyberspace.

Needless to say that also on the smaller level inter-state conflicts will become more frequent when opportunist populists and autocrats like Erdogan rule. And this will easily again become proxy-wars when the global competition restarts.

So in sum the political decline in and between countries leads to badly run countries and conflicts between countries. Therefore the new condition is definitely bad, even if it when it becomes the normal condition should be judged by its own standards.

In the troubled times to come  countries with institutionalized stability have an advantage. At least if they are not rigid and can adapt. We will see how the very stable Germany adapts to Mr. Trump. China also has its own stability. This shows that undemocratic ways of governments are an advantage if they are intelligent and through written or unwritten institutions have continuity beyond single leaders. As said elsewhere less democratic measures can be either purely for power-hunger or to ensure functioning government. Compared to an America torn apart and weakened by internal conflicts and misgovernment China will have a clear advantage.

As long as forces of the old world order still exist we may hope to delay the development of the new. But it may be too late since the 8. November 2016.

At the end of the era Caesar is waiting.

Trump, Catiline, Russia, China and Parthia

Because somebody is a contributor to the acceleration of the general slide towards political decline, it does not automatically imply that this person is the best able to navigate in the troubled waters he stirs up. Maybe he is just of the same limited abilities as one of the Roman predecessors, Catiline. In the first century BC this man tried to seize power as the head of a third force outside the two big political parties, the Peoples Party and the Optimates. Just like Trump is trying now. He contributed to the chaos leading to further civil wars. But he failed in his plans.

In the short term Trump could loose or win the elections. But he will certainly accelerate the World slipping into a new unpredictable era ruled by the personal will of populist leaders. If he is not able to understand or navigate in the new world, other more able leaders will reap the harvest.

So you do not have to be good at navigating in a declined world, just because you embody this dcline. On the other hand you do not have to be declined yourself to have this ability.

No matter who will win the American presidential elections we may as well prepare for the coming post-stable era. An era which could last from a half up to a whole century.

The fueling of the new cold war between NATO and Russia may prove to be a wrong priority for the western countries. The internal lines behind the front could be crumbling as populists and populism gain power and influence. In the short and possibly intermediate term they may have other agendas than to have conflicts with Russia.

The focus can later turn back against Russia with sudden changes of mood. But for now it may be safer for the West to withdraw from expansion and military building up and instead just concentrate on keeping in order the results of the already big earlier expansions after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

But in the long term the tensions between East and West are likely to reemerge. It is remarkable how longstanding and deep this conflict seems to be. With short interruptions it has lasted since the 16th century. And in contrast to now long time forgotten conflicts between countries like Germany and France it has risen again even recently. This could be a sign of a deeply rooted opposition between two fundamentally different civilizations. As such it may resurface from time to time alongside shifting alliances.


Earlier civilizations hav most often at the end of their modernity reached a condition with a de facto emperor (no matter the title) with dictatorial status at the head of all the countries in the civilization. Rome, Qin, Babylonia, Aztecs. I have earlier written that the amount of chaos that is possible to sustain or can be afforded in the leading power with ambition to subdue the rest, depends on the strength of the others. In old China the other powers were for a long time strong. This necessitated an extremely strong centralization and degree of order in the winning power Qin. In old Rome the other countries were powerless afther Hannibal. Therefore the Romans could afford an extreme degree of internal chaos. I have also written that the Americans are in an intermediate position between these extremes. They cannot afford a degree of chaos on the level of old Rome. That is for the Americans the danger that comes from types like Danald Trump. A more organized and stable China could win.

But will our world ever get united under one power?

The competitors are clearly China and the United States. Russia is for the time being on the defensive, at least globally seen. When looking at predecessor-civilizations we see a couple of examples of modernities not ending with a united world. In the first Mesopotamian civilization Hammurabi and his first successors did not succeed in conquering the southern Sealand. The Oriental world was still disunited under the Seldjuks. These deviations from the general rule had their specific reasons. In our case main reasons would be the cost and dangers of modern wars or even conflicts disrupting global trade.

Concerning Rome we nay learn from a broadened perspective. Rome never conquered the whole known world. The Parthian Empire was a very near and ever-present neighbor, and it was very able to resist. In fact the two reached a balance of power. Perhabs Parthia could have been conquered if the Romans had had a lesser degree of internal strife.

Also, Parthia was not a completely different world. Both empires were culturally largely Hellenistic. Parthia gradually became more Orientalized, but so did Rone. In many ways it could have been a natural end to sbsume all Hellenistic parts of the world from Gibraltar to the Indus under one power; the chaos in Rome may have been the factor stopping this development.

Our version of a later not united post-chaotic world could perhaps be the world divided between 3 powers with each their sphere of interest. The United States and China dividing the Western civilization between each other. Each de facto cntrollng their parts. And Russia in a third sphere gradually becomming more culturally distinct and different from the rest.

But the way to this could be filled with trouble. Gradually though the three powers will calm their spheres of influence and agree on the borders between these spheres. At the end could come the global

Pax Americana, Sinica et Russiana

Parties become groups of followers

This was predicted by Spengler 100 years ago. In the last century of a modernity the political parties are gradually being transformed into groups of followers used as tools by single persons. A party has a program, a group of followers has a leader.

In the northern rich world we have already for a long time seen that political parties become more and more person-focused. Their leaders acting like superstars and the parties gaining votes as a function of this. But this never removed the role of programmatic political views. This has changed definitively for the new populist parties, often on the right wing. These are often a strong leader surrounded by "village fools".

And now most of the leaders of the Grand Old Party has been reduced to a group of followers. Surrounding and flattering their presidential candidate in the hope of getting high posts no matter the political principles. The long standing obstructionism in Congress was already a clear sign of the political decline. But it was still politically motivated. Now the only motive seems to be personal power. This is the end point of the political decline in  late modernity which the Western civilization is entering.

The building up of NATO in Eastern Europe is a misguided and hawkish brick, reestablishing the Iron Curtain further to the east. But the talk by Mr. Trump of no longer garantying the security of for example the Baltic states must awake horror in NATO and in the US institutions established for securing America and its power in the world. Another reason why the support for Trump from leading Republicans is so incredible.

In principle a stable end predictable world order is preferable. But only for big players with an equal balance of power between them. Since the break up of the USSR this equal balance has been altered, Russia being pushed back very far toward Moscow. No wonder that Putin is no fan of a stability as is looks presently. NATO's recent expansionist behavior has just added to this. For subdued powers an unstable world order ruled by the will of single leaders is preferable to an unequal stability.

But seen from Washington as the capital of a superpower the Republicans under Donald Trump must look like a security risk.