The Leviathan in the Room

Despite the meme of the World entering a New Cold War is becoming every day more widespread, the question of who is who is just becoming intelligible. Communists and Capitalists of the last century enjoyed the clarity of formal alliances: NATO, on one side; and the Warsaw Pact on the other. And, to top it off, the starkness of the Berlin Wall: a concrete symbol (pun absolutely intended) the liquidity of our current state of affairs does not provide.

Russian adventurism in its near abroad during Putin’s stay in power has distracted the American Empire for two decades now. Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria… Western mandarins have failed to provide a coherent narrative for this activity: Nostalgic Revanchism? Duginistic Eurasian Manifest Destiny? The rapacious policy of a failing Mafia-State? There might (or might not) be a grain of truth in all of those, but none of these memetic frameworks has the potential to truly mobilize anybody.

And besides, Westerners of the “patriotic” kind won’t be easily persuaded to go die again in places like Afghanistan. If anything, flyover country, red-blooded Americans find it difficult to dislike Mr. Putin’s 007-esque antics. People who admire the likes of Chesty Puller or George S. Patton rarely care much for the values the US Armed Forces are trying to adopt lately.

For today’s news consumer, there’s a more marketable dichotomy between USA and China. The myth of two huge empires always on the brink of apocalyptic destruction resonates deeply in a generation longing for a transcendent conflict. Thucydidean narratives of falling and rising powers make for a clean, easy-to-understand story endlessly (and often mindlessly) repeated by pundits and politicos. It sounds original the first time you hear it and, as with Russia, there might be a grain of truth in it after all.

We love the stories of Athens and Sparta in this blog, too. And, although the movie 300 tried to claim Spartanity for America, it just could not work. Washington DC is just the Constantinople to London’s Rome, and England was always a nation of shopkeepers.

As the Soviet world before it, China has a marginally better claim to the Spartan myth: austere, disciplined, rigid, and proud. The men who fought in China’s 22-year-long civil war and endured Mao’s Long March probably fitted, at least somewhat, the soldier-peasant archetype that made Laconian warriors famous. Is this true for the modern Chinese citizen? Difficult to tell.

What remains true is that Sparta has always fascinated political thinkers, and that political tides have often tried to tap onto its memetic potential – modern China included. There’s something attractive about Sparta’s supposedly competent, trusty, and rigorous nature. And often, this attraction is not only felt by the warrior castes, but also by Brahmins. Love affairs between the intelligentsia and authoritarian regimes are an old tradition, Socrates’ support of Sparta itself being the trope codifier.

There’s something about the cleanliness of discipline, seriousness, and proficiency that appeals to the intellectual. Chinese reputation for meritocracy and for the qualities outlined above has made Sinophilia something of a high-status opinion. Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, as controversial as it appeared, reflected the longings of the American ruling class for a call to excellence.

American-style liberal democracy, with its values of individuality and self-expression, is seen by some as vulgar and complacent at best. At worst, it is perceived as leading to a tyranny of the masses, and a lowest-common-denominator mentality. That the offspring of accomplished, millionaire technolords study mandarin has already become a cliché. Faced with prevalent dysfunctionality, many capable people are ready to welcome their new Chinese Overlords.

Others still see value in the American dream of independence and self-reliance. They believe China’s sclerotic bureaucracy will eventually crumble under its own weight, and think it can’t keep growing without losing its tight grip on its population. In contrast, rugged individualism makes the American system chaotic and inefficient, but ultimately more resilient. Of course, there’s some truth in that, too.

But perhaps, everything is just more of the same. Maybe, just maybe, there’s no Athens and no Sparta anymore, and we are ruled by the same System: a dark accelerating force, pulling from the Future to usher the Age of the Bugman. After all, the Western CEO does not own the company he works in any more than the Chinese party bureaucrat owns his chair. Both survive by managing a small part of a mechanism much larger than themselves, only while certain conditions are met, and usually under an important surrender of personal freedom.

Are forced vaccinations and Facebook thought-police really that different from the Chinese Social Credit System? The joke goes that the Communist Party of China spies and brainwashes on its citizens, but at least they realize it. There was a time one could pretend the West was any different.

There is, as we can see, a kind of convergence between China and the West. We could even say this convergence is more pronounced in Western elites. Is it contempt or envy, what they feel for the Middle Kingdom? Its credentialist system of competent bureaucrats sounds like a New York Times wet dream. Its productive capacity marvels the world. And guess what, despite tariffs and covid, trade is booming.

The real nightmare is to realize we’re not in late Capitalism, but in its early stages. Zooming out, it is possible that we’re in fact seeing the early stages of a global system. The two apparent rivals are in fact two appàratuses of the same organism. A conflagration does not happen because of their mutual dependency, a phenomenon that is well described by everybody, but never explained. Here, we suggest it’s because they are two legs (fins?) of the same Leviathan in the room.

You better believe in Revelations because Salvation is not coming from either side of the Pacific.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Cybernetics of migration in the Covidian Age

Last year marked record numbers of illegal immigrant arrivals to the Canary Islands, Spain’s Atlantic exclave off the Moroccan coast. More than twenty thousand irregular entries occurred, completely overwhelming the system. The last time this happened in such a scale was in 2006, when similar numbers reached the Canarian shores, in an episode known as the Cayuco Crisis, cayucos being the kind of ill-equipped canoe used by immigrants.

In many senses, Spain was a more influential country then than it is now. Prime Minister José María Aznar had joined George W. Bush’s global neocon axis, becoming an enthusiastic ally in the latter’s Middle Eastern campaigns. Post-financial crisis disillusionment and perpetual emergency states were not a thing yet. Global pandemics were only a hypothetical risk, usually ranked beneath terrorism and drug trafficking in the annual security concepts published by Western governments. SARS-CoV1 had been overcome a couple years before: the world was optimistic.

Coronavirus has been one of the main reasons for the current surge on immigration, something not entirely unexpected. After all, many industries have been shattered by lock-downs, and men who once earned a living as fishermen, laborers or menial workers have gone out of work. In the regions of upstream in the migratory process -Senegal, Mauritania, Mali-, often lacking the security nets Western welfare States provide, this has an enormous economic impact. The dismal economic data from Europe doesn’t sound as bad in comparison, triggering the migration wave.

Increased security in the EU’s external borders due to the enforcement of quarantines, however, has completely altered the flow dynamics of immigration. For starters, “hot expulsions” –returning irregulars at the moment they attempt to cross the border– have become nigh-impossible: countries of origin do not take them in anymore. The bureaucratic nightmare of processing the newcomers who could theoretically stay has become much worse, too, due to the administration slowing down. Complying with the dilated time schedules imposed by epidemiological knowledge has clogged the already overflowing Immigrant Detention Centers.

The result: thousands of Moroccan and Sub-Saharan young men now crowd the docks of Canarian small-town harbors, with nothing to do until they figure out a way to enter the Iberian Peninsula and from there scatter around Europe. This is especially relevant, as many of the recently-arrived wish to go on in their journey to countries wealthier than Spain, with more permissive policies and, perhaps, some family members already waiting for them. For many, keeping the borders with France or Germany open is just as important as leaving Africa.

As if the migration-related spike in crime wasn’t enough, in a time were gatherings of more than six people are tightly restricted for health reasons, the uncontrolled mass gatherings of young men does not sit well with the locals. Covid has been added to the list of alleged health risks posed by the arrivals: HIV, tuberculosis, and a variety of exotic infections. Police and other public servants, who have to deal physically with immigrants, often lack means to do so safely, and feel abandoned by the government, which does not provide enough protection equipment and resources.

Nothing new under the sun: unwelcome foreigners and invaders have always been accused of bringing various infectious curses; that’s why syphilis was known as the “French disease” (everywhere but in France). It is interesting to notice, however, that most of the dangerous diseases carried by irregulars living in Spain have been acquired during immigration, or even more likely, after it. The dire conditions in which illegal aliens live –squatted, overcrowded apartments, lack of access to health services– and the marginal activities they often engage in, such as junk scavenging, prostitution and drug use, make them risk populations for HIV, tuberculosis, hepatitis, and the like.

As a curious anecdote, it should be stated that Spain’s HIV prevalence is three times as high as Morocco’s or Algeria’s, and roughly equal to that in Senegal or Mauritania. It’s hard to imagine Islamic values and more restrictive sexual mores do not play a role in this fact. Non-STDs, on the other hand, offer a different picture. The comeback of tuberculosis in Spanish cities is mostly attributable to foreigners, for example, and diseases such as African trypanosomiasis and malaria obviously do not come from France.

In any case, establishment voices trying to dissipate fears about illegal immigration usually highlight the fact that, in Spain, the most likely profile of irregular is that of a 40ish year old Colombian woman working as a household aid. This media interpretation of the facts serves to portray those who criticize immigration policy as bigoted paranoids: middle-aged Latinas and their children are unlikely bringers of diseases or, God forbid, Jihad. And after all, it is true that citizens from African countries comprise less than 10% of irregulars. Compared to South Americans, they are a tiny minority.

African immigration presents nonetheless such distinct challenges that its management deserves special policies. This is due to two connected security issues: the already mentioned risk of infiltration by jihadists, and geopolitical competition in North Africa, which not only involves Spain and Morocco, but also Algeria, France, and of course the American Empire and its runner-ups: Russia and China. Covid and the other diseases, nonetheless, have their own particular role in this game, as atavic bywords of the perils of foreign invasion.

Jihadism is a disruptive force in the Sahel, the strip of semi-arid steppe South of the Sahara that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea. There, Holy War is intertwined with local turf disputes and ethnic conflict. Illegal trafficking of goods and people is significant, mostly directed towards the North, and even across the Mediterranean. The Arab Spring didn’t help in stabilizing the region. Libya, formerly a story of relative success, is in shreds and has become the biggest slave market in the continent. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda franchises have been successful in exploiting State weaknesses all over: Mali, for example, has only about 10,000 poorly-armed men to defend an area roughly twice the size of Texas.

The presence of rich resources has made all major players in global politics interested in the Sahel. Oil, gas, gold and even uranium can be extracted from the ground with relative ease. The US officially considers the region as outside its main strategic focus, which is more and more directed towards the Pacific and the South China Sea. The military base it holds in Niger, however, is not going anywhere. It is not minor either, being described by some officials as the largest Air Force construction project in history.

The American stance actually makes a lot of sense in the context of global competition with China: the Middle Kingdom is a strategic trade partner to every country in the neighborhood. It’s also been investing heavily in infrastructure through its famous One Belt One Road initiative. Being far less recalcitrant than its Western counterparts with regards to imposing its own cultural values, China is often preferred as a partner. This involvement requires larger security commitments Beijing is now willing to make.

Russia has also found its way to intervene. Its motives are similar to those of China or the US: accessing the region’s natural resources, selling arms, enlisting UN allies to support its foreign policy, and keeping a finger on the pulse of global Jihad. After all, millions of Russian Federation citizens are Muslims, and Putin is the only major world leader to have fought (and won) a war on his own territory against Islamic Separatism.

Interestingly, Islamic Separatism is the term en vogue to describe homegrown radical Islamism in another country, one with fascinating historical ties to Russia: France. Paris is heavily involved in the region since a war broke out in Mali in 2013, sparking Operations Serval, Éparvier, Barkhane and now Takuba. French activities have been supported by the European Union Training Mission deployed there. Perhaps Macron, with his vision of strategic autonomy, hoped that such collaboration would generate enough inertia to catalyze further integration of EU militaries. This has not been the case so far.

To this day, the idea of a “European Army” seems still quite far-fetched. The interests of the different nations involved are way too different, and their capabilities are too. The French are known as “the Americans of Europe”, being now the only nuclear power in the neighborhood and one of the few to engage in real combat operations, such as the aforementioned. Their adventures South of the Sahara, however, are of meager interest to voters in countries such as Poland, Slovakia and Hungary, more concerned about what’s happening in the Ukraine. Their eyes are in a Biden administration promising higher-voltage tensions in NATO’s (and the EU’s) Eastern flank.

As can be seen, the Empire’s gaze still has time for the Southern Flank, Central European voters be damned. In fact, both fronts are more closely related than it seems. Turkey, the main Black Sea counter to Russia, favors the opposite side in the Libyan theater while defying the US in other fronts. As gatekeeper of the Middle-East, it holds the key to security in the Balkans and even Central Europe, and its relevance to Intermarium politics cannot be overstated.

Meanwhile, American LNG exports have transformed the USA into a direct competitor of Algeria, which supplies hydrocarbons to Spain, Portugal, Italy and Turkey among others. The Algerian oil and gas industry has been heavily hit by the pandemic, spelling political trouble for one of the most socially-burdened countries in the Arab world. a

America has also demonstrated its willingness to apply pressure on the former French colony in other ways. Its recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over the Western Sahara has been interpreted as a direct attack by Algiers, which saw in it evidence of Zionist collusionunderstandably, since the deal included Morocco’s normalization of relations with Israel. Coincidence? Algeria and Morocco were at war in 1963 and are in the middle of an impressive arms race. Spain has its reasons to be worried by all of this, especially after rumors surfaced that Rota Naval Base in Cádiz was being considered for relocation to Morocco.

What does all of this have to do with illegal immigration to the Canaries and Covid? Well, for starters, the Canarian route, from Morocco to Tenerife, is a (cheaper) alternative to three others: one across the Strait of Gibraltar, a land-based other through Ceuta and Melilla, and a third one across the Mediterranean from Algeria to the Balearic Islands. The surge in arrivals to the Canaries is partly explained by tighter control at these three traditional routes. Broke immigrants and adventurers chose the path of least resistance. The harder a path becomes, the more the migratory flux is diverted to its alternatives.

From this perspective, a different model of immigration starts to emerge. One in the shape of a complex network, a dynamic collection of nodes (harbors) and links (routes) that can be played with. In other words, a cybernetic system which can be regulated and controlled just like any other. In this reality lies an opportunity: by lifting pressure on one route or the other, border authorities can manage the flows of immigrants who have to choose between setting sail from Algeria, from Morocco, or from anywhere else.

Whether anybody is taking advantage of this or not is difficult to say. One thing is certain: throwing money wildly at the problem seems to do nothing to solve it. Machiavellian as it sounds, now that we don’t even blink at lone wolf terrorism, threats of disease can and will be used to amplify the political and media impact of migration waves. As an excuse, they provide the added bonus of facilitating the opening and closing of borders with little backlash. Thus, countries can be quickly flooded with newcomers from upstream in the migration routes, then drained at will by allowing entry through specific ports. Tensions are built and relieved in a localized and precise manner.

κυβερνητική (kybernētikḗ) means “governance” in Greek. While the world’s hoi polloi accumulate at the gates of sinking empires, the great powers (the US, China, Russia) scramble for influence over the vast territories left behind. Meanwhile, second-tier petty kings in Europe and Africa navigate the stormy waters to gain an edge or advance their agendas. Perhaps governments should go back to the roots of the art of governance, and pay more attention to nodes, links, hubs and switches . After all, as the Dutch proverb says: “It is in the roots, not the branches, where a tree’s greatest strength lies.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Diesel, gas, and paradox

News surfaced a couple weeks ago that the German government offered to pay the Trump administration up to a billion euros in exchange for lifting sanctions on Nord Stream 2. The whistle was blown by a non-profit called Environmental Action Germany (DUH – Deutschland Umwelthilfe), a member of the Brussels’ based European Environmental Bureau.

DUH was founded in 1975 and is one of the many environmental agencies receiving funding from the EU. It became famous a few years ago, when they spearheaded the legal battle against the German car industry (and the German Federal Government, allegedly protecting them) on account of the Dieselgate scandal. The affair was uncovered in 2015, when the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice of violation to Volkswagen. As it turned out, the company had been presenting fraudulent emission measurements of its cars to comply with test regulations; the readings in real driving conditions greatly surpassed the toxicity threshold, posing a public health risk.

The scandal led to the investigation of many other giants in the car-making industry, mainly but no exclusively German ones. It also served as a wake-up call to the problems of diesel as combustion fuel, which had wild ramifications: France’s diesel tax, which sparked the still ongoing Yellow Vests movement, is a remarkable example. The legal impulses to curb traffic in big cities, and the meteoric rise of electric car makers, such as Tesla, are other related events. After years promoting diesel, suddenly it had to be completely eliminated. The “economic periphery” of the world was most impacted, whether in the American Mid-West, French provinces, or downton London.

DUH demanded that car makers payed for the modification of all vehicles with excessive emissions, including those already in circulation. The financial burden generated by this proposal would be unacceptable. It would severely cripple the German motor industry, which is the crown jewel of the nation’s export machine and thus an important factor of its positive trade balance in relation to the US. Interestingly, the supply chain of this industry includes as key providers of parts notorious Visegrad bad boys such as Poland, Hungary or Slovakia. The existence of German exports is vital for many Central European economies.

As one of the most powerful nations in the European Union, the interests of Germany as a whole are sometimes conflated with those of Brussels. This is obviously a huge simplification, as can be seen by the facts exposed above. After all, the EU Commission has imposed enormous fines on the same carmakers DUH claims are in cahoots with the Bundesrepublik. The EU’s relation to its discolous Visegrad members has also seen better days, to put it shortly.

In any case, the controversial pipeline, now almost complete, is a perfect example of this complexity of interests so characteristic of EU politics. Nord Stream 2 would double the amount of natural gas delivered from Russia to Germany every year. It bypasses Central Europe, which had a small leverage until now thanks to its upstream position in the Russian gas network. Understandably, countries in the region, Poland and Ukraine especially, are frontally opposed to the project. As is known, the Americans support the Central Europeans in their stance, since they aim to sell Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) in direct competition to Russia.

Thus, the scandal: German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz, of the Social Democrat Party, wrote a personal letter to former US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, allegedly asking to allow “unhindered construction and operation of Nord Stream 2” in exchange for dedicating up to 1 billion euros to fund the import of American LNG. This alternative source of energy is more expensive, as it requires complicated logistics and processing costs. Flooding Germany with Russian gas and American LNG would turn a country known for its massive investment in green energy into a hydrocarbon powerhouse.

The use of taxpayer money to buy the American government’s complacency to this is a significant realignment, especially when done against what apparently are Brussels’ wishes. Gas politics are one of the last bridges between Europe and Russia, especially after this month’s shaming of High Representative of the EU Josep Borrell (another socialist!) by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. If this link is severed, it should not be surprising to see Russia look for friends in other increasingly isolated countries, such as China. Counterintuitive as it is, the US has to favor its trade rivals to prevent the solidification of an Eurasian block. It’s not wise to force all your rivals into the same corner.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Caviar, marketing, and competition on the Russian Far East

A couple decades ago, European restaurants paid thousands of Euros for a kilogram of caviar. Currently, they manage to get it for a fraction of the price, thanks to the irruption of Chinese producers. Chinese sturgeon bred in fish farms is now of remarkable quality, thanks to improved industrial practices. Consequently, the Asian country now is responsible for 60% of the world’s production.

The processing of this delicacy, though, is often done by European companies with European capital, its unglamourous Chinese origin thus obscured under French-sounding brands. As with the iPhone – designed by Apple in California, assembled in China, talent and refinement are Western, while the sturgeon’s origin is ambiguosly traced to the cold waters of the Amur river.

The People’s Republic of China is heavily invested in the development of Siberia and the Russian Far East, a place of rivalry with the USSR in the days of the Sino-Soviet split, back in 1969. The area is rich and under-exploited, and modern Russia is happy to let foreign powers collaborate in revitalizing its Pacific Coast.

Several international meetings have been taking place lately in regards to the under-exploited district, and not all of them spell good news for China. Narendra Modi’s “Act Far East” policy, is designed in part to counter China in scenarios far from its already tense borders. Japan is also in on the deals, which focus on topics everywhere from energy (especially coal), transport and maritime navigation, healthcare, the environment, and scientific and technological pursuits. The Indian and Pacific Oceans are, surprisingly, very poorly connected, and increasing traffic is a great opportunity for all parties involved to reduce their dependency on the Suez Canal and the Northern Sea Route.

This is relevant, because Trilateral Cooperation also involves de Arctic Region. India already has the Himadri research station in Norway: a key element of its activity is centered on the climatological impact of the North Pole over the meteorology of the Third Pole: the Himalayas. Just like China, India and Japan are permanent observers in the Arctic Council, along 12 other countries. We’ve talked about the parallelisms of the space and Arctic races before, and what they mean to their participants.

The reader might be confused regarding the connections between caviar and geopolitics. Here at the Outpost we just found it poetic. While the rest of Humanity scrambles for the control of the Globe’s last wild regions, Europeans feast on a splendidly engineered and marketed product, recognized worldwide as the symbol of opulent decadence.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Based Poland III: another exercise in wild speculation

As we’ve seen in previous articles (here and here), Poland is a country completely split along ideological lines, each of which belonging to a different geopolitical project: Open Society, Great Reset New Normality Regime vs. Neo-Westphalian National Populism. The causes, thus, are to be found outside of its borders, and within those of the country that leads said rival projects.

Although it is certainly not the first time the US election is legally contested (look no further than George W. Bush’s victory in 2000), it is also true that the establishment’s polarization and the factionalism present, amplified by new technologies, are unprecedented. If the US suffered another 9/11, it’s unclear whether the emotional reaction to the catastrophe would be the same across the country. This cleavage becomes more apparent in the US’s vassals in Europe and elsewhere, whose elites usually favor one or the other project.

Enter Joe Biden, the Open Society candidate. He was the candidate of Germany and all the other governments more or less subscribing to EU orthodoxy: France, Spain, BeNeLux, etc. The reasons for this support were not entirely ideological, but also rooted in the hard power issues of trade and defense. Despite being systemic partners and rivals in the first question, Biden is seen as less untreatable and unpredictable than Trump, who put tariffs on products such as steel, aluminum or wine. A quick defrosting is probably wishful thinking, but the EU will be happy if no new confrontations are ignited.

Defense is a different matter. Germany, in particular, is hopeful that the plans for a draw-down of US troops stationed in its territory, initiated by the Trump administration, will be stopped under then new presidency. In general, the EU is hoping for a US government more lenient with its slacking off in NATO responsibilities, and less sympathetic to “illiberal democracies” like Poland, who try to develop their own bilateral agreements and independent military capabilities.

So what happens to Poland if the Open Societies win? Well, the most likely scenario is that it completely falls back to being a Germany’s political and cultural sidekick. Economic dependency is tough, and Poland relies way too much in its Western neighbor. A government willing to march in step with Open Society Progressives would safeguard the country’s prosperity for a while, in exchange for renouncing any hopes of a leadership role in Central and Eastern Europe.

Polish apparatchiks dominate the game of surfing political tides perfectly. Despite their fame as based conservatives, the Polish Deep State is, as all Deep States, chameleonic. It’s made up of career public servants who grew up as model young Communists, and then rode on Solidarity’s ascendance to eventually thrive during Capitalist democracy, often even rediscovering their lapsed Catholicism.

Perhaps, the operation is already underway. Recently, protests erupted after the Constitutional Court’s ruling against abortion. An unnecessary polemic at the worst possible moment, unless you want to agitate the masses, goading them into loudly proclaiming their antipathy for the government.

The feminist protests pitted Young, Educated, Progressive™ abortionists against hooligans with fashy haircuts, a precise real life reenactment of Internet memes. One element, however was notorious in the narrative. Acording to all European media, it was “a majority of Poles” who protesting against the government. Propaganda meant for Progressive audiences outside of Poland usually portrays Poles as a monolytic nation of Catholic, mysoginistic racists; it is thus meant as an aesop about the dangers of not fighting Fascism hard enough in more enlightened countries. The type of tale that sparks purity spirals and justifies purges against wrongthinkers.

Instead of fostering division through the creation of strawman Fascists, however, this time the story is trying to become a unifying factor between Poles and their fellow EU citizens. The message being sold is: “even these Polish primitives have seen the error of their ways”. Now, when the PiS falls from power in a few years, Poland will be able to brand itself as a victim country, long-oppressed by those retrograde, paranoid and chauvinistic National-Catholics. Just like everybody denies any former allegiance to the old Communist regime, they will now deny the PiS was in any way representative of society at large, and joyfully join the ranks of European conformity. And with an Open Society President on the American throne, this time, with the added benefit of Imperial approval.

For the hell of it, let’s imagine different scenarios. Maybe the US election stays contested for a long time, and the world’s most powerful country becomes trapped in a chronified identity and legitimacy crisis. Maybe the PiS fails in its intent to lose the 2023 election. In that case, Polish Nationalists will not be able to convincingly recant their recalcitrant identitarian ways. They will become an ally of a weakened American opposition, the remnants of Trumpism. This will force them to look for other powerful allies. Perhaps to the East?

Russia and Germany have a special relationship, but one that would not tolerate easily a renewed transatlantic alliance under the banner of the Great Reset. Russia starts the new decade in relatively decent shape, compared to the previous ones. Putin has done his homework and is now ready to retire, rich and shielded against prosecution. A lot of Russia’s former influence in its near-abroad has been recovered, but the country is still poor, depopulated and sorely lacking friends. Wedged between the Woke Empire of Euro-America and a West-bound China, there is a lot of potential for unlikely alliances, common interests and areas of cooperation. The liquefaction of the Arctic is also a variable that should be taken into account.

Wouldn’t it be funny? A hermitic Nationalist Poland, entrenched in the middle of Progressive Europe like a sort of Conservative Cuba. Trying to build its dreamed Intermarium, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, in reluctant, mutually suspicious cooperation with post-Putinist Russia, Islamic Turkey, and rogue US assets who use it as another piece in their homegrown intrigues. But of course, this is just speculation.

This article belongs to a 3-part of a series, which began here.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Based Poland II: ambitious plans

In the last post, which you can find here, we talked about Poland’s political division and how it resonates with the wider world’s dilemmas. Poland’s fit in the European Union has gone from poster child of post-Eastern Bloc democracy in the early 2000s to anathematic illiberalism. There is, of course, a strategic reason for this decision. Without being present in the actual halls of power, it’s practically impossible to know what’s really going on in International Relations. Perhaps nobody knows: not even those making the decisions.

The Outpost’s wild speculation here is that Poland’s long term geopolitical bet was aimed at replacing Germany’s role as the America’s main hard power foothold in Europe. An outrageously ambitious objective, sure, but you gotta shoot for the moon to reach the stars. This was to be materialized in several ways. First, by becoming an obstacle to the EU’s political integration attempts. Second, via infrastructure projects that altered the architecture of current flows of people and goods in the continent. And third, through bilateral military cooperation, by-passing already existing NATO structures.

The EU’s political integration is complicated to achieve, due to the member states’ diversity of interests and capacities. The priorities of countries such as Ireland, Belgium, Finland and Greece simply cannot be the same. Homogenization attempts have been tried to turn different populations into shallow versions of the same decaffeinated, liberal “citizen of the world”. Things like the Erasmus university exchange program have been successful in producing these types in the younger generations, all of them unified in their consumerist and cultural habits, with minor regional variations for folkloric flavor. Hard realities are difficult to overcome, though, and things like the immigration crisis, with its linked economic and security issues, have put the EU’s seams under too much stress.

The second element of Polish geopolitical strategy was to switch from Russian gas, via the ducts coming from the East, to US-delivered Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). This requires the construction of sophisticated facilities in the Baltic coast to return the gas to its natural state. Poland hoped to get ahead of competitors by becoming the European reference in gas imports, and hopefully to sell its non-used supplies to other Russian-dependent Central European states through a network of newly built ducts directed southward. A somewhat unrealistic objective, considering that LNG is 50% more expensive than its alternative. The Nord Stream 2 project, bringing Russian gas directly to Germany under the Baltic’s waters, is of course the main obstacle to this strategy, justifying both Poland’s and America’s opposition to it, complete with extensive lawfare operations to stall it.

Other infrastructure mega-projects with a potential game-changing effect have been attempted by Poland. One of the most notable is the Solidarity Transport Hub Poland: a huge airport which could eventually see up to 100 million passengers a year, complete with a business city around it and massive railroad connections. The airport is close to the geographic center of Europe, and would be an excellent node in the LA-Tel Aviv, Vienna-Tokyo, Shanghai-Paris and NY-Tehran air routes. This puts it in direct competition with the airports of Frankfurt (about 70 million annual passengers) and Berlin (30 million).

Another initiative with a similar aim of re-balancing logistics in Europe is Via Carpathia: a land route connecting the port of Klaipédas, in Lithuania, with Thessaloniki, in Greece. This would help to considerably develop Eastern Europe, much less interconnected than the West. It also has the potential to connect with the Chinese New Silk Road, which has already been discussed in this blog. Understandably, PO Germanophiles were less than enthusiastic about this idea, which has been on the table since 2013. Only after the rise to power of PiS did the project really take flight. Interestingly, improving communications in the Eastern Flank does not only help the development of the region, but it also exerts a gravitational pull away from European centers of power such as Berlin or Paris.

The third axis of Polish strategy was to engage in bilateral agreements with the US, so as to ensure it is the Americans most important military ally in Europe. The star project of this policy was the much discussed Fort Trump: a military complex that would serve as a deterrent, supposedly against Russian forces stationed in Kaliningrad or in Russia’s Western district, across the Belarusian territory. The Poles expected to host a whole US Army division. Although this is probably too much, an agreement was signed in August 20 by Mike Pompeo approving the redemployment of 5,500 soldiers to Poland, with a potential to make it 20,000 in the future. This was an explicit response to Germany failing to comply with NATO defense spending requirements: 6,400 troops based in Germany have been sent back to the US as part of the same agreement.

At the moment, the US leads the enhanced Forward Presence battle group in Eastern Poland for Operation Atlantic Resolve, a NATO effort conceived as a reaction against Russia’s involvement in the War on the Donbass. Since that conflict is not over, the mission’s justification remains, ensuring American presence in Polish soil. But things change in the blink of an eye: in two years time, with a new administration, the game of alliances can completely shift. Once LNG platforms in Poland and elsewhere start going operational, the US will increase its number of reasons to remain involved in Europe. Increased efficiency in communications and transportation might also change the flow of trade, creating new land-locked markets towards the East, with new shared interests in the neighborhood. One thing is certain: the post-Great Reset American Empire will look very different from 2001, and all its tributaries will feel the change one way or another.

This article is part of a series. You can find the next and final installment here.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Serving two lords in the Third Rome: a quick note on the Nagorno-Karabakh

In his seminal book Clash of Civilizations, Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington described the world as composed of a handful of civilizations, mostly in competition against each other. The West was thus clearly different to the Orthodox, the Muslim or the Sinic worlds. Cultural differences made conflict short of inevitable, especially in the border territories that are halfway between the centers of two different civilizations.

Places like the Caucasus, Ukraine or the Himalaya are such hotspots (Huntington called them “faultlines”). Gray areas where the Orthodox civilization meets the Muslim world and the West, respectively; or where the Chinese and the Hindi cultures meddle. It is a historical truth that these regions are conflict-prone, and all of the examples mentioned are painfully current.

Last week Ilham Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan, and Nikol Pashinyan, Prime Minister of Armenia, signed an agreement to end hostilities in the Nagorno-Karabakh. The armistice has been brokered by Russia, in what can only be considered a huge strategic success.

The Nagorno-Karabakh is an Armenian exclave in Azeri de jure territory (until just now). It is connected to the Armenian territory through a line called the Lachin corridor. Russia will deploy about 2,000 peacekeeping troops, complete with armored vehicles and enough equipment to hold this line as well as the border between both countries.

The Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia will remain in their current positions. With the armistice, refugees will return home and prisoners and dead bodies will be exchanged, everything supervised by the UN. Land communications will be restored and controlled by Russian border guards.

Conventional knowledge in the West tends to portray this conflict as a proxy war between Russia and Turkey, a memetic inheritance from Huntington. After all, Armenians are known as a Christian people, already genocided by the Turks in the early 20th century, while the Azeris are seen as the Turks Caucasian sidekick. It makes sense to consider them as small projections of their overlords, fighting on their behalf.

Reality is more complicated, though. Azerbaijan and Russia are, and have been for some time, great partners in foreign policy. Russia has made it no secret that it values its relationship with it at the same level it values that with Armenia, and its arms sales to both prove the fact.

The assumption that the “Orthodox civilization” acts as a block is not only betrayed by Russia. Serbia, another country frequently oversimplified as a Russian proxy, was quick to support Baku instead of its Armenian correligionaries. The Azeris and the Serbs support each other on their territorial issues in the international arena; after all, Kosovo is still not recognized by Russia, China, and Spain, among others. Evidently, countries belonging inequivocally to the same civilizational sphere do not behave as a community of interests.

The hypothesis of Azerbaijan being some sort of Turkish puppet is also unsustained by the alliances it makes with others. One of the main tactical advantages of the Azeri military over Armenian forces has been the massive use of drones to obliterate Armenian infantry and armor alike. Military observers the world over have been paying very close attention to these doctrinal advances, made possible by drones supplied by America’s Greatest Ally™. Yes, that’s Israel, the same country that regularly calls Turkey a threat to the region lately, and that has formed an anti-Turkish front by joining former enemies such as the United Arab Emirates or Bahrein.

So who cares for Armenia? Not many people, apparently. Or, more precisely, powerful but unengaged powers. India is one of them, as Armenia favors it against Pakistan in regards to Kashmir. Meanwhile, Iran, an Islamist Revolutionary Republic, also prefers Armenia to Azerbaijan, but has not translated this preference to any military aid. It keeps a rethoric coherent with its enmity towards Israel, but not much else. According to pro-Azeri media, France also supports Armenia to spite Turkey, but there’s nothing material to back up the words. Note that, of the three, at least two are nuclear powers, so they’re not exactly irrelevant geopolitical actors.

What lies behind this isolation? Pashinyan became Prime Minister after a series of protests in 2018, which overthrew the former president. The protests where known as the Velvet Revolution, and were characterized as catering to democratic liberal sensibilities. The West applauded Pashinyan’s aperturistic efforts as he attempted to build a closer relationship with the US. When did things go south?

Well, this will probably be disappointing to those who want to find anti-Christian connotations in Armenia’s abandonment, and attribute them to the Usual Suspects™. Here’s a theory from The Outpost: one cannot serve two masters. Improving Armenia’s rapport with the US is incompatible with remaining in the Russian sphere and the South Caucasus is a long way from Texas. Georgia learned the lesson in 2008, and maybe Armenia needed to hear it too.

Befitting this theory, the immediate reaction to the ceasefire have been calls for Pashinyan to step down, deemed a traitor by his people. The borders have stayed mostly intact, Russia gains a significant presence in the area, Turkey has not made any advances it wouldn’t have made anyway, and further destruction and bloodshed is prevented (the death toll estimates reach way past 4000). And most importantly, American sympathies in the region are curtailed.

In summary: a tidy world of cultural-political spheres makes for great memes, and the Clash of Civilizations made for great propaganda for the War on Terror. But the Orthodox memeplex attributed to Russia needs revision. Moscow may well be the Third Rome, but Holy Rome it isn’t. It aspires to be the capital of the Empire, a fact which should always be kept in mind. If you want to belong as a province, you better burn your offering at Caesar’s altar, and nowhere else.

China, Outer Space and the Arctic’s melting point

As a cold, dark, dangerous place, the Arctic is often compared to Outer Space. It is a remote, barren land, mostly unknown, and cannot even be reliably penetrated without the use of advanced technology. Funnily enough, the US State Department has a single lawyer dedicated to legal issues concerning both areas. We have discussed previously in this blog the liquid quality of both the Far North and Outer Space: a medium for exchange and interaction, more than colonization and competition.

This intimate relationship between both becomes even more apparent when realizing that any advances made in the Arctic depend on satellites: there is no Arctic if there is no Outer Space. Communications with the rest of the world, subsistence activities, reliable navigation, weather forecasting, climate monitoring, and environmental protection all require space-based technology, and this especially true in the Poles.

As of now, both the Arctic and Space are militarized but not weaponized areas. This means that there are military forces deployed there, but no weaponry is currently deployed there to threaten other powers. In the popular imagination, this calls back to the Cold War era, with images of radar dishes and nuclear warheads guaranteeing missile-based deterrence. In fact, the militarization of the region goes back a little bit further in time. In one of the few historical instances of US territorial invasion, a small Japanese contingent occupied the Aleutians in Alaska for about a year in 1943.

The Battle for the Aleutians was simultaneous to the more famous Battle of Guadalcanal, leading to the first being somewhat overshadowed by the latter. Nonetheless, it featured extremely ferocious fighting, harsh conditions and the only recorded banzai charge in American soil, heroically led, sword in hand, by Colonel Yasuyo Yamasaki. The Aleutians’ strategic value was due to their ability to control Pacific routes, something US General Billy Mitchell had already predicted in 1935: “I believe that in the future, whoever holds Alaska will hold the world. I think it is the most important strategic place in the world.” The Soviets did not participate in any way in the battle, their attention being mostly focused on the Battle of Stalingrad, which was happening also at the same time.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, and probably due to the region’s hostility, the Arctic was conducive to a relative defrosting of Soviet-Western relations during the Cold War (pun absolutely intended). During one of the earliest cooperation efforts by both powers, in 1973, the US and the USSR, along with Norway, Denmark, and Canada, joined forces through the Polar Bear Treaty, which protected said animals from being indiscriminately hunted from aircraft. This cooperation came only a year after the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the 1972 Interim Agreement on Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, both significant diplomatic inroads designed to limit nuclear proliferation. Successive agreements have been signed on this matter, with President Obama signing the third them with Vladimir Putin in 2010.

These small steps in cooperation were taken further in 1982, when the US and the USSR showed a united front in the negotiation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, addressing some territorial and environmental issues which also affected the Arctic. Collaboration in the Arctic outlasted the disintegration of the USSR, and in 1996 the Arctic Council was created, becoming the main instrument of governance in the polar regions. Nowadays, it is still mostly concerned with scientific endeavors and search and rescue operations, avoiding completely the topic of security. It includes all the countries with sovereignty in the Arctic: the US, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia.

Russian-American cooperation in the Arctic survived unscathed the lowest points of mutual relations, including the 2014 Crimean Crisis (still ongoing to some extent). And the same happened with Space: until this year, the West still depended on the Russians and their Soyuz rockets to bring astronauts to the International Space Station. Cooperation kept going on steadfastly.

Not even aggressive Russian gas geopolitics have changed this reality. Nord Stream 2 is only another tool of Russian power. The US and its Central-Eastern European allies decry it, while Denmark, Finland, and Sweden welcome it. Seeing how its presence affects most Arctic and Baltic countries, it’s interesting how the project has not affected significantly cooperation efforts in the Polar regions among all involved.

How would the entry of a new player affect this equilibrium? Recently, China started to refer to itself as a “Near Arctic Country”; a generous descriptor, considering its northernmost city is at the latitude of Philadelphia. Just as it has been doing with Outer Space exploration, China has entered the Arctic in full force during the last few years. And by the way, guess who is not allowed to participate in the International Space Station?

The last China polemic is the purchase by mining giant Shandong of a Canadian gold mine in the Nunavut region. The fact has been examined as a possible security risk, especially after the diplomatic tensions between Canada and China related to the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, of Huawei, on intellectual-property theft charges. China securing a legal and physical foothold in the Arctic would help it secure its control of gold, hydrocarbon and rare earth minerals in an area of increasing interest, sprinting ahead of its competitors.

Cooperation in the North Pole between major world powers has been steady and solid for decades. Substances, however, tend to modify their physical properties after undergoing a change in their chemical composition. Adding a new element will surely alter the delicate transpolar bonds. What was Trump’s stance on Russia? What is Biden’s stance on China? Is the melting point of the dark northern waves rising or lowering? We’ve said it before: the Arctic is melting fast, and it’s not only about the climate.

The Peloponnesian Paradigm, and why Central Asia matters

The Spartan-Athenian rivalry is a useful memetic framework for the discussion of biopolitics, as we have seen in the past few weeks. The archetypal attitudes towards women and feminity found in both Greek cities are a fantastic tool for exploring deeper questions in regards to contemporary politics. The polarization generated by issues related to sex and race, biological traits as they, demonstrates that the 21st century will be a biopolitical one. This Peloponnesian Paradigm, as we will call it here, can be however applied as a recurrent theme in geopolitics.

Harvard political scientist Graham Allison used it most recently to describe America’s relation to China’s rise, coining the term Thucydides Trap. A reference to Greek historian Thucydides, it describes a tendency to conflict between a standing hegemon and an emerging power. Supposedly, this dynamic of rising and declining powers explains the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC), which pitted a well-established Sparta against Athenian burgeoning influence in the Eastern Mediterranean. As an agrarian society, Sparta had an outstanding army; Athens relied instead on building a very advanced navy, which protected its thriving diplomatic and trade relations. People like dichotomies, and the difference between tellurocracies such as Sparta (landed, agrarian, militaristic) and thalassocracies such as Athens (naval, commercial, diplomatic) soon became codified in culture.

The Peloponnesian Paradigm offers enormous memetic potential to understand the world we live in. It is a fine way of reintroducing the Classics into the much degraded current political discourse, too. The comparison, though, is somewhat overused, as it can be applied to almost any situation. For example, if one leaves out the ideological details, Anglo-American intervention in World War Two can be understood as an attempt to tackle competition from both Germany and the USSR: the well known balance-of-power strategy described by Kissinger. As we like to remember here in The Outpost, NATO was designed to keep the Soviets out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. From the Reformation onwards, this policy had been a constant to British approaches to the continent; an outlook inherited by its spiritual successor, the American Empire of the Waves.

By the second half of 1940, Britain was clearly on the defensive. Miraculously successful as it may have been, the evacuation of Dunkirk was still a military disaster for the Allies. The economic blockade imposed on Germany by the Royal Navy was failing, and supply lines across the Atlantic were threatened by the U-boats of the Kriegsmarine. In dire need of ships, Churchill made a deal with the US through which destroyers could be acquired in exchange for British possessions in the Atlantic. Bases in places such as Newfoundland, Jamaica, Antigua, Trinidad and the Bahamas were passed on to America in one single sweep, while ships leftover from the Great War were given to the Royal Navy. In other words: Winston “best PM ever” Churchill was the man to deliver the final blow to the British Empire, a fact frequently overlooked when judging his historical role. Fortunately for his legacy, History is written by the victors. In any case, the destroyers-for-bases deal signaled a new era in the Anglo-American “special relationship” and ensured the Americans’ future naval supremacy, turning the US into the military and economic powerhouse we all know and love. This was precisely the road map traced by Alfred Thayer Mahan, so it should not be considered in any way a lucky coincidence.

America had been, up to 1945, a fairly provincial country; a nation of “farmers and shopkeepers”, built around the myths of the minutemen, the pioneer, the homesteader and the railroad. Not very different from the Germans, after all: a country for built by and for a free middle class. Perhaps not coincidentally, German is still the most commonly claimed ethnic ancestry in the US, according to Wikipedia: over 50 million people. For all their imperialistic (and land-based) adventures in 20th century Europe, Germans never built a lasting overseas Empire; their colonial possessions in Africa were held only from the 1880s to 1920. Is the geopolitical role of a civilization determined by “national character”, or is said national character what leads it inexorably to a certain role? Did the Germans lack the qualities to succeed in their imperial endeavor? And were Americans always fated to become the British’ successors?

These questions need to be answered before applying the Peloponnesian Paradigm to any modern day system; especially if one intends to predict the future. Historically, the Chinese were not particularly known as a seafaring civilization. Their greatest mariner, Zheng He, was almost forgotten in his homeland until the 1900s; this, despite the fact he almost single-handedly gave form to 15th century South East Asian maritime trade. Building a powerful blue-water navy nowadays still requires a lot of money, time, and zealously guarded knowledge and expertise, much as it did in the Age of Exploration. Currently, the ability to project maritime power abroad is strongly dependent on having aircraft carriers, of which China has only 2 (the US Navy, by contrast has 11). This is a fact the Chinese are compensating by building artificial islands all over the South China Sea, and is also the reason the US Marine Corps is trying to re-adapt to an archipelagic operational environment.

Meanwhile, the People’s Liberation Army has a Ground Force half a billion men strong, and Xi Jinping has made a centerpiece of his Foreign Policy the One Belt One Road Initiative. Set to be completed in 2049, it is probably the most expensive infrastructure project in History (an estimated 4-8 trillion USD), and intends to finance the construction of railways and roads all across the Eurasian landmass, with a complimentary sea route along the coastlines of the Indian Ocean. All of this naturally concerns the US, who as a naval power has to make an extra effort to remain in the New Great Game developing in Central Asia. It also concerns Russia, a quintessential land power, and a referent for all ex-USSR republics. Finally, it concerns Turkey, a former and actual naval power in the Mediterranean, an ambiguous US ally, and one of the cradles of the 19th century pan-Turkist movement known as Turanism.

Is geography destiny? Do countries change in shape in consonance with their character, or is it the other way around? Sparta only won the war against Athens after the Battle of Aegospotami (405 BC), where Lysander sunk the Athenian fleet and left the enemy defenseless and without grain imports. Sparta had to change to overthrow Athens, developing its naval capabilities thanks to new diplomatic ties with Persia. In a way, it embraced the thalassocratic nature of its enemy, learning to defeat him with his own weapons.

The Peloponnesian Paradigm shows powers can change, turning the strategies of their rivals into their own. At the same time it builds its westward railroads, China can attempt to become a naval power and push for world domination. Meanwhile, the US can try to stay entangled deep inland, as it has for the last 20 years in the Middle East, so as to remain relevant in the region. With regards to a country like Turkey, expanding its influence towards Central Asia means gaining strategic depth in a competitive neighborhood. And for Russia, it means recovering access to lost key assets, including vast mineral resources and a strategic cosmodrome at Baikonur (Kazakhstan). Being a strong player in Central Asia is thus crucial to all of the above’s foreing policies. Now you can go and wonder why the Afghanistan affair is still not over, and why trouble keeps coming up constantly in places like Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Xinjiang.

Mediatic facts and controlled demolitions from across the Rubicon

Conflict is deeply ingrained in the human mind. Like a cloud of electrically charged particles, it remains potential and shapeless, in an ideal resting state. When it is given ideological meaning, however, it’s as if the particles were suddenly exposed to an electromagnetic field. The latent conflict acquires a memetic nature, and animosity becomes orderly, vectorial. Ideological meaning works as a framework which allows hostility to be interpreted rationally by those who partake in it. It provides a cultural scaffold, a channel for violent impulse to develop and become political. It is through this process that the primal, schmittian distinction between Friend and Enemy is born.

In other words, political conflict cannot be deducted from ideological contradictions and divergences. On the contrary: ideology is induced from conflict, which is ontologically previous to it and which arises from real events, which are physical phenomena. We can observe how the parts in a conflict perform their confrontation, and after identifying the ideological differences found among the parts, we place said differences at the root of the conflict.

This notwithstanding, once a conflict is memetically well defined, the inverted phenomenon can also happen. An occurrence, which by its physical nature is non-disputable, can acquire a memetic load and become a mediatic fact, which is something entirely different. A mediatic fact can be completely counterfactual: in the age of deep fakes and counterfeit news, any story is suspect of having been distorted, misrepresented or plainly invented from scratch. Whatever the case, the mediatic fact becomes such by virtue of its ability to fit into an existing narrative, the previously established memetic framework of the conflict.

The recent blast in Beirut can serve to illustrate the difference between this closely related concepts. On August 4th, a huge explosion devastated the port of the city and the surrounding areas. The death count is by now past 200. Initial reports immediately pointed to a container where ammonium nitrate had been unsafely stored, after it was seized by port authorities six years ago. So far so good. But then, when it’s time to lay blame on someone, interpretations start to diverge according to one’s political stances.  Was it a terrorist attack by Shia group Hezbollah? An intelligence/military operation by Israel, or by somebody else? Perhaps just a horrible accident?

It is important for those involved in a conflict to establish a mediatic fact immediately after an event, so that it’s successfully propagated among potential friends. Violence is a creative force. Integrating every violent occurrence into a wider narrative strengthens intra-group links, fosters cohesion, and breeds identity. The mediatic fact is born from highlighting certain aspects of what happened, downplaying others and, if necessary, bending the factual truth. This is all a fancy way of describing propaganda, as should be obvious: nothing new about fake news, despite the pedantry of network theorists.

So what is going to happen now in Lebanon? Nobody knows for sure. As always in matters of geopolitics, we are dealing with incomplete information. We can’t even be sure the tragedy was intentional, let alone try to guess the motives of any potential culprit. The mediatic fact each actor is constructing, though, can be analyzed to shed some light on what the future could bring.

The explosion comes at a delicate moment in Lebanon. The country is being heavily affected by COVID-19 and deep in a financial crisis which will require a bailout of more than $93 billion. This is a gigantic sum, and the problem is aggravated by the fact that nobody wants to pay it. An important sector of the Lebanese economy is controlled by Hezbollah, which has a formal political representation in the country but is considered a terrorist organization by most of the American Empire. It is estimated that Hezbollah extracts at least $0.5-1 billion every year from Lebanon, while enjoying important clout in the legislative and executive branches; its military wing owns an impressive arsenal of 150,000 precision-guided missiles and is arguably more powerful and experienced than the government’s Lebanese Armed Forces. A lot of Hezbollah’s military effort is spent in supporting Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in Syria, backed by Iran and Russia. Any help delivered to the Lebanese regime would be fueling this system, something the West is reluctant to do.

Interestingly, Hezbollah has not rushed to accuse Israel directly in its formal statements, and has taken a more defensive stance, calling for an investigation of the blast to find out the truth, even going as far as initially ruling out Israeli involvement in the catastrophe. The Lebanese Cabinet, which was under the stranglehold of Hezbollah, resigned en masse in the aftermath of the blast. But instead of seizing the opportunity to exacerbate tensions with Israel and take over, the militants have called for a “national unity government” (preferably under their control, of course). In other words, the mediatic fact for Hezbollah is that the status quo has been altered by a fateful accident, and going back to it is the solution.

Israel has denied any involvement in the affair and offered humanitarian aid through UN channels, as it is still technically at war with Lebanon. While there have been accusations on social media of the Jewish State being behind the explosion, these are unlikely and in any case hard to prove. There is no interest either for Israel in escalating the situation more than it does already: the Israeli Defense Forces continue to clash with Hezbollah in Lebanon’s southern hills, with the last cross-border shelling happening only last month. In summary, the mediatic fact for Israel is that all of this has been a terrible tragedy, and an indicator that it’s time to move on from old policies; if somebody is to be blamed it’s Hezbollah, for storing explosives in populated areas.

This said, the truly remarkable event concerning Israel in these last few days is not the explosion, but the US-brokered agreement between the country and the United Arab Emirates to restore formal diplomatic relations. Again, this is a mediatic fact: the UAE and Israel have been in contact behind the scenes for years, and Israel’s supposed concession of suspending its West Bank occupation is just it acquiescing to postpone something which it can’t do anyway. Making all of it official after the blast is a way of building a united front just in time for possible regime change in Lebanon.

Mediatic reactions haven’t come far behind the mediatic fact of the agreement. Hezbollah condemns the act, calling it a “betrayal of Islam” and criticizing the other Arab regimes which arestanding already in turn awaiting the order” to make peace with the US before the November elections. Turkey’s Erdogan declared “the move against Palestine… can’t be stomached”. For Syria and Iran, the deal means the chasm with the Sunni world is widened. For Turkey, it is another reason to move away from the USA and towards new friends in Europe, Russia and China.

Israel, the US and its Arab allies have waited for this turbulent moment to tease Lebanon with the prospect of a relatively peaceful Levant, set to balance the Turkey-Syria-Iran axis. They don’t need to push for change in Beirut, as the tide is already going on that direction by itself. Once food shortages and disease start kicking in, the Lebanese system is bound to fall apart. If anything, the US, Israel and the Gulf States are interested in seducing Lebanon to fall on the right side if all hell breaks loose. If this process happens in the form of a controlled demolition instead of an explosion, all the better… But you can’t plan for what lies across the Rubicon. There are steppe wolves out the door, and many of them yearn to see the sunset over the Mediterranean’s wine-colored waters.

%d bloggers like this: