The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Month: February 2024 Page 1 of 4

The Most Likely “War” With Russia Scenario

Russian troops are now advancing across almost the entire front. It’s slow, but steady. There are no defensive lines built to stop them, the best they’re likely to get is the use of rivers.

Ukraine clearly no longer has enough men or ammunition.

Macron and some other European leaders have discussed sending troops, but sending them to fight Russia is insanity, and hopefully they can see that, since WWIII will suck.

But there’s one play they may feel they can get away with.

Send in “Peacekeepers”. Have them advance to the borders of Russian areas, and use them to secure Odessa and say “we are just separating the combatants.” It’s a way to limit Ukrainian geographical losses and avoid it becoming a land-locked country and the Europeans just bet that Putin isn’t willing to risk or start a war with Europe and/or NATO.

How likely is this? I don’t know. But of the various insane options, it seems the most likely.

 

You get what you support. If you like my writing, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

Macron & Many European Leaders Call For WWIII?

So, French leader Macron thinks Europe should send troops to Ukraine to fight Russia. (This is colloquially known as “declaring war on Russia.”)

rench President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday that sending Western troops to Ukraine should not be ruled out, as European leaders concluded a summit on supporting Kyiv.

“There is no consensus today to send ground troops officially but … nothing is ruled out,” Macron said at a press conference in Paris, where the meeting had just wrapped up. “We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war.”

“The defeat of Russia is indispensable to the security and stability of Europe,” the French president added.

The subject was first raised publicly by Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, who said a “restricted document” ahead of the summit had implied “that a number of NATO and EU member states were considering sending troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis.”

Macron also announced that leaders agreed to set up a ninth capability coalition on deep strikes that will focus on medium- and long-range missiles. Other coalitions include artillery, air defense and de-mining.

This is, in effect, an acknowledgment that Europe knows Ukraine is losing.

So, there are two main possibilities here. First, it’s a negotiating ploy, to get a better deal for Ukraine. Second, they’re serious.

Let’s point out a couple things: Russia is outproducing the entire West in artillery shells and ammunition and Western armories are bare: they’ll run out in two weeks to a month of real war, at most. Second, China is not going to let Russia really lose a war, because they know who’s next and Europe has mostly been very willing to follow the US in anti-Chinese actions.

Iran, obviously, will support Russia as well. They know they’re on the list.

It’s actually not clear that the West would win this war: Russia is out-producing the West in terms of war materials, China is the undisputed largest industrial power in the world and it’s not clear that if other powers step in, China and maybe Iran won’t step in on Russia’s side. They really, really don’t want to: but the defeat of Russia, as already noted, is an existential threat to them.

Next, if either side starts losing, there will be a strong temptation to reach for the nukes.

On a smaller note, if Europe supplies long range missiles and those missiles hit something that matters (say the Kremlin, or the Bolshoi) things could get ugly fast. Seeking to expand the war further into Russia is certainly “legal” but it’s not wise. It won’t change the outcome of the war, it will merely make the war more likely to expand, which is why the German Scholz is correct to oppose it.

All my life, the charge against people outside elite circles has been that we are “un-serious”.

This is extremely un-serious behaviour.

I will note, further, that the reason Europe and the US can’t compete with China and Russia is that they simply refuse to reduce economic rents, lower living costs and make their rich less rich in order to reduce operating costs and oligopolies and monopolies sufficiently to ramp up production, both of war materials and, well, everything else.

They want to live like Kings, our elites, having the South send them materials and the Chinese and other nations send them manufactured goods, while using their populations for rent extraction so they can become richer and richer.

They have confused money with power. Money is only power when it can buy power. And increasingly, in the West, it can only buy power domestically, not internationally.

This is a grave mistake, and the graveyard of Empires.

Fools. And worse than fools.

You get what you support. If you like my writing, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – February 25, 2024

by Tony Wikrent

Gaza / Palestine / Israel

Opinion: I’m an American doctor who went to Gaza. What I saw wasn’t war — it was annihilation 

[Los Angeles Times, via Naked Capitalism 02-22-2024]

 

Global power shift

[X-Twitter, via Naked Capitalism 02-19-2024]

.

SCOTT RITTER: Mike Turner’s Folly 

[Consortium News, via Naked Capitalism 02-18-2024]

Open Thread

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

The Level Of American Foreign Policy Incompetence

Is breathtaking. Brzezinski was Carter’s National Security Adviser. In 1997 he wrote, not long after the fall of USSR, that:

Potentially the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia and perhaps Iran, an ‘anti-hegemonic’ coalition, united not by ideology but by complementary grievances. . . . Averting this contingency . . . will require a display of US geostrategic skill on the western, eastern and southern perimeters of Eurasia simultaneously.” — Zbigniew Brzezinski

It’s sort of hard to do commentary on this, because of the jaw dropping, head-banging stupidity of it all.

I don’t like US foreign policy after WWII thru the late 60s, but it wasn’t brain-dead. Evil, often, but not stunningly stupid. Nixon was a terrible person, but his “opening of China” was smart and policy after him thru to Bush the Elder was, while not good, or smart, was at least not always stupid.

But since then American policy has been brain-dead. Making Russia into an enemy. Making Iran into an enemy. Shipping America’s industry to China so that a few oligarchs could get richer for maybe two generations. None of this was necessary, for decades polls in Iran showed that Iranians had positive views of America. Russia was so enamored of the West that Putin, in his early years, begged to be let in.

But the US had greed and grudges. The Russkies were always bad and the Iranians had humiliated America, so there could never truly be cooperation and peace and trade which was designed to benefit both side.

And so America lost its global hegemony, precisely by doing what it was repeatedly warned not to do: unite the greatest Asian powers against it.

American and Western elites in general aren’t suited to run lemonade stand, let alone countries or an Empire.

Imbeciles, specialized only in self-promotion and accumulated money which will be worth one-tenth what it used to be when the Empire collapses.

You get what you support. If you like my writing, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

The Rate Of Child-Deaths In Gaza Are About To Soar

From the start of the conflict I have been most concerned, not with the bombing, as bad as it is (6x as much as the US dropped on Iraq during the last war in postage-stamp sized open-air prison) but by the cut-off of food and water. Israeli protesters have been blocking much of what little humanitarian aid is sent, the main aid agency has been defunded by the largest donor countries, most Gazans are starving and most of what little water they have is dirty.

UNICEF now reports, and these numbers are from January and thus almost a month out of date (meaning the current situation is wrose), that:

The report finds at least 90 per cent of children under 5 are affected by one or more infectious disease. Seventy per cent had diarrhoea in the past two weeks, a 23-fold increase compared with the 2022 baseline.

We don’t tend to take diarrhoea seriously, because we have medicine and enough water and we aren’t malnourished and underweight to start with, but historically diarrhoea is a mass killer. Without hospital care (and there is almost none left in Gaza), water or medicine, Gazans, and especially children, are going to start dropping like flies.

I am also seeing that due to malnutrition new mothers can’t breast feed, and there isn’t much if any formula meaning death of newborn babies will be astronomical.

Moving on to the military situation: the Israeli military remains unable to destroy Hamas, but destroying Hamas has never been the goal: the goal is ethnic cleansing.

Egypt is building camps in the desert near Gaza. Egypt has, in the past, refused to allow ethnic cleansing into their country, on the grounds it would be destabilizing and they can’t afford it (and a pretense of caring about ethnic cleansing, which is true of the population but not the ruling caste), however it appears a deal between Israel, the US and Egypt may have been cut.

If this is so, Israel will win the war unless Hezbollah and Syria attack before the ethnic cleansing. Remember, the real Israeli  goal is, and always has been, to get rid of the original occupants of Palestine by any means possible. Once the Gazans are pushed out, the Palestinians in the West Bank, who don’t even have a Hamas, will be dealt with: indeed settler, police and military violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, and seizure and bulldozing of homes is way up.

There are multiple players here, but unless the war expands or I’m wrong about Egypt, which I could be, I don’t see how this doesn’t end in an Israeli “victory”.

They learned well what the Nazis taught.

You get what you support. If you like my writing, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

More Statistical Manipulation In Real Time (Top 1% Wealth)

Rudy Haverstein noticed this one. It used to be that the top 1% wealth exceeded the wealth of the 50-90th percent (the middle class) about ten years ago. Here’s that old chart:

Then some statistical changes were made:

The Fed attributes the changes to “Distributional Financial Accounts models updated for the 2023Q3 release.” I’ll note that – as with CPI – I’ve never seen data revisions that made the situation look worse, always better.

Now the top 1% only recently surpassed the middle class:

I bring this up because too many people believe that economic stats aren’t fiddled. They’re heavily, heavily fiddled. I consider CPI essentially worthless.

This has turned into a massive debate: most Americans think the economy sucks, but if you look at economic stats Biden is the greatest economic president since FDR. But that’s based on CPI being what the BLS says it is. And the CPI, after decades of manipulation, is garbage.

So, let’s skip the bullshit. Every once in a while a study (not a regularly collected statistic) slips and lets some truth thru:

A Federal Reserve study on household finances found that Americans outside the wealthiest quintile have depleted the extra savings generated early in the pandemic and now have less cash on hand than they did when the pandemic began.

If manipulating a statistic is useful to those in power, it is manipulated. When I first started blogging, I used to cover Bureau of Labour Statistic releases every month. I had spreadsheets full of stats. Now I don’t, because Garbage In, Garbage Out. (GIGO.) In truth, even back in the early 2000s the stats were terrible, but it took me some time to figure out how divorced they were from reality, and that divorce has widened since.

Instead I try and look at real numbers: reported retail prices and wholesale prices and actual rents and so on. There’s some unavoidable use of official statistics, but they’re only really useful comparatively, and even then one has to be careful, due to constant revisions, including backwards revisions.

One recent stat is that Russia has been growing faster than the G7. Is this true? Well, I think so, for a variety of reasons, but it’s only a probability. China definitely is, because I see vastly expanding industries all over the place, enough to make up for the deliberately engineered real-estate collapse.

Don’t believe internal numbers. Cross check your personal experience with the experience of other people and believe that. Even if you get it wrong, in a sense you’ll get it right: are prices much higher for you and those you know than they were pre-pandemic, or not? Has your income and those you know risen faster than those prices?

That’s your personal economy.

I have often thought that if I were suddenly in charge of any major country, practically the first thing I’d do would be to form my own corp of auditors, reporting only to me, and the first thing they’d do is savagely audit the statistical agencies, followed by mass firings and re-formation.

Because if your statistics are bullshit, it means you can’t really know what’s happening. And if you don’t know that, well, you can’t make good decisions.

Under our current regime that isn’t a problem: they don’t want to make good decisions, they just want statistical support for pre-determined neo-liberal decisions.

And that’s why they’ve spent 50 years running the economies off the West into the ground.

You get what you support. If you like my writing, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

Lightning Strikes And Third Parties

Here’s the thing about third parties: sometimes they get elected. In first-past-the-post duopolies it’s uncommon, but it happens.

Recently I wrote that voting for the lesser evil doesn’t work.

Most of the time, neither does voting for third parties. But sometimes it does. The NDP (Canada’s most left wing party) had never formed a government in Alberta, then suddenly in 2015 they defied all the polling and won. For most of the 19th century Britain alternated between Liberals and Conservatives, then suddenly in 1924, Labour won—and this is back when Labour actually was fairly radical. The Liberal still exist (as the Liberal-Democrats), but they haven’t formed a government since.

There come times when people are upset with the status quo and truly want to change it. FDR is one, Reagan is another. In both those cases, the change was channeled thru an existing party.

If you can get control of an existing party, that’s what you should do. FDR, once elected, sidelines his Democratic enemies and remade the party in his image.

But, often you can’t, and in such times controlling a third party allows you a chance for the lightning strike; the moment everything changes. If the mainstream parties won’t accommodate it, you can.

The key here is to keep the part aligned with your ideology. A third party which changes its ideology too much to “win’ is not a good third part. A third party’s job is to catch the wave of discontent, ride it to power and displace one of the previous major parties. It is up to them to make the case that they are the “real change” and that the big two aren’t (or big however in proportional states.)

The problem with this, for individuals, is that it’s a long game. Your entire life could pass before the lightning strike. But if you manage it, you can change everything, as indeed Labour did, when Atlee came to power at the end of World War II.

The other option is to create and sustain a faction in one of the main parties. If you can do that, great. But right now, every attempt to do so in the Democratic party has failed. On the other hand, it has been done repeatedly in the Republican party, so if you’re right wing, forget third parties: take over the Republicans or form a faction and wait your chance to do so.

If, on the other hand, you’re left wing, do the third party thing. Keep it on the ballots in every state and wait and work and pray for the lightning strike.

 

You get what you support. If you like my writing, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

Page 1 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén