Dear Helen Hayes MP,
Thank for your prompt reply. I must say that in terms of what came first and what happened second, I do disagree with you. Right after the point when the Soviet Union came to an end and Ukraine returned nuclear weapons, everything was alright. Ukraine was facilitating passage of gas and oil from the Russian Federation to the rest of Europe, consuming Russian gas and oil itself and paying for the delivery of gas and oil that it consumed.
The second stage was the time when it became clear that the economic situation was not the best and some Ukrainian oligarchs were shown to be benefitting while the rest of Ukraine was suffering.
The third stage when payments for gas and oil were not made, the Russian Federation asked for payments that were not forthcoming and the political situation become turbulent and made worse by American politicians and EU politicians that saw an opportunity to damage the relationship with the Russian Federation and this we saw on the streets, is on record and it includes records of pseudo demonstrators that were paid to demonstrate.
The fourth stage was the rise of the paramilitaries that with or without authorization of the central government of Ukraine started to alienate ethnic Russians.
The fifth stage was the actual rise of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine when nothing was done to deter paramilitaries and ethnic Russian had to arm themselves and ultimately declared independence. Even at this point in time, they wanted autonomy, but not total separation from Ukraine. It would have been up to the Ukrainian government to tackle the paramilitaries to prevent a civil war.
For years on end, about eight years, the Ukrainian government could have used whatever degree of authority it had to impose the rule of law and prevent the actions of the paramilitaries.
Instead of providing support to bring the situation under control, the West aka USA used Ukraine as part of its anti-Russian strategy. It was done with Iran because Iran at the time was a close ally of the Russian Federation since the Russian Federation provided nuclear fuel for Iranian reactors and it was done in Syria that was also a close ally of the Russian Federation.
Iraq used to be a buffer zone. In fact, Iraq itself was used before against Iran and at the time the West looked the other way when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. What happened was that with Iraq out of the way the whole balance in the Middle East changed. Hundreds of thousands of Iraq flee Iraq after the American bombardment and ended up in Turkey, in Lebanon, in Syria – to name a few places. With Iraq out of the way, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel started their quest to fill up the gaps to create a new status quo. What happens in Yemen is very much part of the same game with Britain, Saudi Arabia and USA cooperating with each creating one of the worst human catastrophes because of their conflict with pro-Iranian forces.
So the issues of refugees is not new. It started big way with the disappearance of Iraq and of Libya as buffer zones. Nowadays, the mass media have blamed Belarus from the refugee flood. Let’s not forget that at one point EU was paying Turkey to prevent the waves of refugees desperate to reach Europe.
President Reagan promised Mikhail Gorbachev that with the Berlin Wall gone there would be no further expansion towards the East. Promises that were not fulfilled. Expansion continued apace with the threat of missiles right across the borders of the Russian Federation. What happened with Ukraine was the trigger, but it was not unexpected. The Russian Federation spoke about red lines that were crossed one after another, completely disregarding the concerns of the Russian Federation. Instead of delivering what had been promised, the so-called West – aka USA started to implement sanctions after sanctions and this was rubbing salt in an open wound.
Nothing has changed and the same failing strategies of imposing sanctions go on, antagonizing the Russian Federation ever more.
With regards to energy, despite the conflict in Ukraine, the Russian Federation continues to pump oil and gas towards European countries via Ukraine. Oil prices and gas prices are rising and will keep rising and we will soon see political changes not just in Europe, but most importantly in developing countries that can ill afford the rising costs of energy. This happens at very bad time when we are still recovering after two years of a pandemic that has generated vast financial damages.
We had a choice of bringing about changes via increased trade and development and now we are back again implement the policy of guns. The new German Chancellor speaks about increasing Germany’s defence budget by investing not less than 200 billion Euro. How is this going to work? It is going to pump up debt at the expense of everything else in a country in which there is galloping inflation. Let us remember how we got to this point. In 2017, CDU/CSU with Angela Merkel barely managed to form a coalition. She failed to form a coalition during the first round of negotiations with SPD that refuse to form a coalition. She then tried to form a coalition with FDP and Grünen and didn’t manage to do it. Then, as last resort, she managed to persuade SPD to come onboard again. That was 2017. In the recent Federal Elections, CDU/CSU collapsed from 41% to less than 25% and SPD that didn’t increase its votes was in charge of forming a coalition and did so with FDP and Grünen. How stable such a coalition will be remains to be seen and energy costs will be a major factor.
If there is growing unemployment, the patience of AG Metal, the biggest union in Germany, will run out and support for SPD that is only represented in 11 of 16 Federal States will collapse meaning the collapse of the German coalition.
Rebuilding the German Armed Forces will not be green. It will require a lot of industrial power mainly based in fossil fuels – coal being the major German resources because Angela Merkel after the Fukushima disaster opted for dismantling German nuclear plants. If Germany becomes unstable – since Germany is the main support of the EU – the EU becomes more unstable.
The situation both in political terms and in geopolitical terms will be solved with more economic activity. Not less economy activity. Sanctions promote less economy activity. Less economic activity promotes unemployment. Unemployment promotes political instability. Political instability that the European continent does not need. You can then cross to France and see what is happening in France. The Socialists after Hollande are out of the game. What is left? Macron and two branches of the so called Far Right.
I haven’t even mentioned the Developing World. Argentina is drowning once again. More than 50 per cent of Uruguayan exports go to China. To name just these two countries, what effect do you think financial issues and the rise of energy prices will have in those two countries? They are not the worst off. Think about the others. In the 1950s and 1960s the collapse of agricultural exports as agricultural prices started to fall led to massive indebtedness followed by massive budget cuts leading to political instability followed by military regimes. Countries live in a cycle of unpayable debt and constant negotiation to refinance debts. How much so-called democratic regimes can take before we are facing another cycle of de facto regimes? In Argentina, there was a cycle of Justicialistas and Radicales. Both of them have proven to be equally ineffective. In Uruguay, the once powerful Partido Nacional and Partido Colorado have only been able to survive by forming a coalition and this is something extraordinary, and this coalition comes after the exhaustion of the so called Frente Amplio that itself is in crisis. What are the political alternatives? Is there a political alternative? What happens in Chile that was once one of the most promising countries of Latin America?
You need to look at the bigger picture. The sooner the present impasse comes to an end, the sooner sanctions are lifted, and trade re-starts in a big way, the sooner we stop talking war and start talking about economic development, the better we all will be.
Look at the big picture. What good came out of the struggle in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and of other military adventures? Is the world a better place because of it? Have you thought about Lebanon and the human tragedy that Lebanon is today?
We keep following the same failed strategies of the US that it itself is a mess with Congress having to pass again and again legislation to increase borrowing to prevent paralysis of the entire Administration and ensuing chaos. Is this the model that we want Britain to follow? Is this the model that we want Europe to follow?
I keep repeating myself and saying that Britain needs its own independent Foreign Policy. We voted for Brexit not to be attached to the designs of the European Union, we talk about trade opportunities, and the first thing we do is to use the same past failed recipes that lead to confrontation, waste, and social chaos.
As Paul Samuelson used to say, the choice is between butter and cannons.
Best regards
Karl Hohenstauffen
No comments:
Post a Comment