Post-hoc

I've been a bit neglectful of my blog of late, and I'm hoping that it is for two not unworthy reasons: the first is that I've been interning with a small nonprofit three days a week, and also I have been searching for a full-time job that can pay me a livable wage; the second is that I've been rewriting the second book I wrote and finished last year, and preliminarily, I find it to be better than the previous version. Will I shop it around to agents? Eventually, though I'm not sure how 'commercial' my work is.

On a more important note, Ukraine. Over the past month, it's exploded into a Cold War-esque geopolitical nightmare for the west. Russian troops (in unmarked uniforms for the plausible deniability) occupy Crimea, which has voted to secede from the Ukraine and become a part of Russia. Vladimir Putin, the all-but-a-sultan of Russia, has stated that the recent ouster of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych posed a threat to the ethnically Russian people living in Crimea; thus, the intervention, even though Putin has also said that there is no way to tell if those are really Russian troops. (Confusing, I know)
There needs to be a brief bit of background on this whole issue:

• the first point of note is that, before the protests in Kiev began, Ukraine was preparing to enter the EU by making the standard array of changes (see Copenhagen Criteria).
• President Yanukovych was renowned among leaders for his corruption, and quickly accepted money from Russia, turning his back on the Copenhagen Criteria and the EU, which was supported by a majority of the Ukrainian population.
• Russia supplies around 1/3 of all gas imported in the EU. 
• Half of all Russian gas that enters the EU goes through Ukraine.
• A 1994 agreement between the US and Ukraine recognizes the border of the then-new state of the Ukraine.
• Russia maintains a naval base in Crimea, which would likely no longer be leased to the Russians should Ukraine enter the EU. The base maintains a strategic Cold War position as the place of first strike against the west in case of an all-out war.

The US has been more than happy to step up and present sanctions as the solution against Russia, though with a caveat: they begin exporting American-mined gas (through fracking, which faces much resistance globally) to Europe, tackling a huge, profitable market.
The costs for that, however, would be large. The shipping, tariff, and import duties, not to mention the establishment of transit areas through which the gas can be safely delivered to Eastern Europe would likely cost more than the current Gazprom pipeline setup. Thus, the EU hasn't implemented the pernicious sanctions that it could; at least, not yet.
This is Europe's trump card over Russia: cutting off Russia from all gas imports would cause the Russian stock market and economy to take a nosedive due to the estimated loss of profits, and the ruble would drop internationally. 60% of Russia's state income comes from export of gas and oil, and the EU is its largest customer. It is the one pressure point the west has on Putin, and they are hesitant to use it.
One should hope, however, that the EU is willing to take the dramatic step in terms of international presence and make a stand against Russia's incursion into Ukraine. This entire debacle raises ghosts of the 1990s, when the incipient EU found itself impotent in the face of the Balkans crisis; one would think that, in light of those confusing and tumultuous times, the EU would be able to make the difficult, yet right, decision.
Of course, then there are the business interests. One shouldn't be surprised that David Cameron's government is espousing pro-business, anti-EU positions; honestly, would anyone expect anything less? In this situation, however, even Germany, which receives 40% of its gas imports from Russia, has been hesitant in taking a strong stand against Russia.
The EU Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the EU High Representative, etc. etc. etc.; they were all established in order to create a prominence for Europe in international affairs. One preening windbag (or the preening windbags in his party) shouldn't be enough to stop what is the only reasonable course of action for the EU: impose trade sanctions on Russia, targeting gas imports. With a united voice, the EU can deescalate the situation. After all, the European economy can be recovered, but the people who fought and died against Yanukovych's crackdown in the Maidan cannot.

That's all for now,

Das Flüg

Share |

Boy Meets Anachronistic World

I, like just about every other hormone-addled boy, grew up watching the many exploits of James Bond in his many incarnations. From Connery to Brosnan, I was always excited to see a fun, if not somewhat campy, spy adventure that almost always featured the archetypal arch-rival of the west, the USSR. The first Bond film made after the Cold War ended, Goldeneye (featuring a resoundingly suave Pierce Brosnan), had one very simple line of dialogue that fit that new era:



Bond is a relic of the Cold War. The USSR fell, deflating the military tensions between Russia and the west, and ushering in a time of what some may call "Big Power Peace," simply meaning that there are no wars between the large powers. So, if there is this peace, then why do they still need to spy on each other?

As just about the entire world knows, Edward Snowden, former NSA analyst, leaked information that the US had a massive spying program. That, in and of itself, is not surprising. The kicker, however, was their largest target: Germany.

I was gobsmacked, to use local British parlance. Germany, of all countries, was the target of more spying than Iran, or China, or North Korea, or any of the US' so-called "enemies." Why? Well, there hasn't been any real clear answer, but I can dare to speculate: the US wants to know what will happen with the Euro. Whatever the intention of the US is to do with that knowledge, whether it is used for undermining or attempting to corner the currency swap market, only those in the US intelligence community can know. Again, it's speculation, but I can't fathom any other reason as to why the US would spy on a reputable ally.

Then we come to the very notion of spying on allies, something presumably thought of as unconscionable and unethical. It is a notion stuck in the 1950s, held back by myopic thinking and government bureaucrats still old enough to remember when they were appointed under the Nixon administration. These soulless minions of orthodoxy take a singular form: the aged, commonplace, almost ubiquitous elite in the Pentagon, the State Department, Congress, and the White House. Do they still hold the notion of US hegemony over everyone to be the end-all, be-all?

These men and women (though there are exceptions) grew up in an extremely simple time in terms of foreign policy: good and bad, Capitalism and Communism, us and them, etc., whatever it was the propaganda dictated. Can we truly expect these people to understand a new multipolar world where the machine is greater than the sum of its parts? In other words, can these people see anything aside from power politics where the US is king and premiere?

Possibly not, possibly so: there is evidence for both. On the one hand, the US still has the most technologically advanced military along with the most expensive professional army in the world, and yet they were stymied by guerrilla fighters using weapons from WWII. Clearly, it is not the size of the army or the strength it holds that truly matters anymore, but its ability to adapt to the changing character of war that truly displays its might.

On the other hand, there are senators, such as Elizabeth Warren, who have demonstrated a keen understanding of new age domestic politics, especially in her dogged pursuit of those who perpetrated the financial collapse of 2007, along with her support for aid to university students, where tuition is liable to bankrupt the average student. But, and this is the unfortunate reality of it all, she is the minority.

The men and women now in government had it easy, at least comparatively: tuition prices were exponentially lower when they attended university, and getting some kind of job right out of college was more common than not. The government scandals coming from these neo-Reaganist administrations is enough to sour politics for the younger class, especially those who find their ideals placed in someone who, like Janus, shows one face to the public but a wholly different one when it comes to governing.

So what can we expect of those youth who still want to enter government? Do they work under those who perpetuate orthodoxy, who still believe in Cold War machinations of politics? Do they adopt those beliefs and erase whatever preconceived ideals they might have had, just because they do what is expected of them rather than what is better? The answer is that, well, I don't know. My generation never knew the Cold War, and we have yet to truly enter government and make a difference. We would have to literally let the old guard die to completely understand whether or not we can think outside the realm of defunct notions.

And so, like a boat tethered to shore, we wait for the ideal opportunity to remove ourselves from those anachronistic beliefs of the past and pave our own paths in politics and diplomacy, because otherwise, we will rust and fall apart.

That's all for now, 
Das Flüg

Zoon Politikon

For those of you who don't know, the Polish president died in a plane crash over the weekend. What I didn't realize was how much it affected those not even living in Poland.

A woman who works at the dining hall is originally Polish, obviously living in the US now. I was talking to her today, and I asked how her weekend was. She said that it was difficult for her because of the death of the president, and what I found was astounding was that she really felt anguish because of his death. I saw that as soon as she brought up the president, her demeanor became suddenly sadder. This was fascinating to me.

To me, the notion of someone grieving over the death of a political figure that one does not have to perfunctorily follow is alien. The US has been racked by overzealous partisanship and extreme polarization, mostly culminating in the fact that if, for example, President Obama were to suddenly die, many people would be glad. Sarah Palin, for one, would likely be ecstatic that he was gone, though she obviously wouldn't make the fact explicit. Even I would have been glad to see Dick Cheney keel over during his tenure in office, though we all know that he technically can't die because he doesn't have a heart. This raises an alarming question for me: are we, as the Greeks described, still the political animal, or have we become the intransigent animal? Even more, have we reduced the actual act of politics to one's religious and/or social beliefs to the point where a politician's actions no longer truly matter?

To end on a somewhat lighter note, here's a good bit of Germany philosophy vs. Greek philosophy:


That's all for now,
Das Flüg