From around the middle of the twentieth century, federal agencies tasked with law enforcement, intelligence gathering, and various types of “defense” have accrued overwhelming power in the United States. Democrats, who now worship such agencies, may wail at the term “Deep State” and the idea that they are nefarious. But regardless, the FBI, CIA, and myriad other “three letter agencies” are immensely powerful and reside outside of the political process which the public participates in.
Perhaps the John F. Kennedy assassination was a coup, perhaps it wasn’t. But there is little doubt that in the immortal words of Senator Chuck Schumer, these agencies have “six ways from Sunday of getting back at you.” While President Donald Trump may give lip service to fighting the Deep State, his support of what I called the “Trump-Biden World War III Bill” funding Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan demonstrates that he knows the limits of permitted resistance to their power and that they will ultimately win. While it is probably impossible to fight the Deep State within the legal democratic process, we also have an enemy in “the Middle State,” the administrators who operate in the open, and that can potentially be vanquished from within the system.
It is best to think of this Middle State as playing the role of the clergy under feudalism. In fact, this is a direct parallel since the kind of work they do is called “clerical,” having historically been done by clergy. The lack of formal power of the Catholic Church in the United States means we have never had the clericalism and anti-clericalism of the Latin countries, but perhaps it is time for our anti-clerical moment. You can argue that this is different because the clergy performed a primarily religious function, but this disregards just how much secular liberals worship the government.
Religious or not, the record of gutting the clergy’s power without collapsing into communism is better than that of removing the nobles (who are more akin to the Deep State). Most of northern Europe was able to remove the power of clergy during the reformation, though no example is as striking as Henry VIII of England closing the monasteries. Of course, over time a more powerful secular bureaucracy arose, but it was a long process. In the modern era, President Ronald Reagan was able to fire the federal air traffic controllers for striking, a move no president has survived (be that politically or mortally) making against any intelligence agency. This should give us hope that getting at least some of our country and freedom back is a possibility.
Some months ago The New York Times put out a short video titled, “It Turns Out the ‘Deep State’ is Actually Kind of Awesome,” which was targeted at people whose brains are already mush. The basic premise was to go around talking to people with relatively anodyne government jobs and asking these mundane bureaucrats how it felt to be classified as enemies of the people by Donald Trump. No attention was given to the parts of the government that are secretive or dangerous, and the message was that these are “public servants” and not “unelected bureaucrats.”
While some of these jobs are necessary to run a government, administrative bloat is consuming our society and economy, with our terminally “underfunded” schools, which always have money for new administrators, being just one example. The absurdity of the press telling us to appreciate the selflessness of this class is that salaries, benefits, and pensions are much higher than comparable jobs in the private sector, all with much better job security, so they are not sacrificing anything. As has historically been common in mature states which become ever more corrupt, our clergy’s power has completely outstripped that of the laity in a way which greatly harms the common man. Further, these tax eaters are among the biggest supporters of the growth of government, and are the ones who actually do most of the work of harassing and oppressing us. Reigning this in should be a political priority. The fact that they are generally Democratic partisans is an advantage since it gives the other faction a meaningful self-interest in fighting them; it’s the one time politicians can be incentivized to do something useful.
Though it has been far from perfect, Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter provides a compelling demonstration of the broader situation. He fired over half of the Twitter workforce upon taking power and the website continued to function, even if there has been some problems and Musk’s mercurial nature provides its own annoyances. Like the government and the rest of our society, Twitter had a large class of people who didn’t do anything a normal person could identify as useful. Instead, their job was to harass and control the users in a way that made the experience much worse for the majority in favor of their narrow class interests. They were certainly self-important, but not important in the normally understood sense of the word.
As at Twitter, there is every reason to believe much of our government bureaucracy could be gutted and ultimately do better at their core tasks. Hopefully, this would inspire the private sector to follow suit and purge its own clerics. Regulatory requirements do become a problem in any program to reduce employee numbers, and we know that government career bureaucrats will apply them maliciously in this circumstance, but major cuts to regulations would be a key part of any program to go after the bureaucracy.
It is fair to be “black pilled” about fighting the CIA or getting rid of the warfare state. However, the offense taken about Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance’s “joke” that miserable, childless cat ladies who work for the government are ruining society shows that this class is simultaneously powerful and vulnerable. They may have unions and a sympathetic media and a political party, but the Middle State does not have the power to go around blackmailing, prosecuting, or assassinating everyone of significance who may oppose them. Our entire system is designed to ensure the Deep State maintains power, but it is a different matter for the Middle State. It would require determination and decent political leadership to make it a reality, but the Middle State, major enemies of freedom in their own right, can be defeated within the confines of the current political system, and deserve to be.
Despite slapping Moscow with an unprecedented sanctions regime in 2022, European countries and the United States continue to rely on vast quantities of Russian energy and strategic materials, including gas and uranium, importing them to prevent spiking prices and shortages from wrecking their economies.
Russia is a world leader in the production of an array of strategic minerals, from natural gas, gold and diamonds to uranium, titanium and nickel, and should “think about” whether it’s possible to reduce the export of the latter three resources in response to unfriendly countries’ actions against Russia, President Vladimir Putin has said.
Speaking at a meeting with government ministers on Wednesday, Putin asked Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin to look into the idea and report back, stressing that any proposed restrictions should not be “to one’s own detriment.”
“Mikhail Vladimirovich, I have a request for you: please look at some types of goods that we supply in large quantities to the world market – the supply of a number of goods to us is being restricted. Well, perhaps we should also think about certain restrictions – on uranium, titanium, nickel,” Putin said.
“In some countries, strategic reserves are being created, and some other measures are being taken. In general, if this does not harm us, we should think…about certain restrictions on supplies to the foreign market,” he added.
“I am not saying this needs to be done tomorrow, but we could think about certain restrictions on supplies to the foreign market not only of the goods I mentioned, but also of some others,” Putin said.
The ongoing NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine has reduced, but not fully stopped, economic exchange between Russia and Western countries, with the US continuing the purchase of Russian uranium for its vast network of nuclear power plants, and gas continuing to flow via a pipeline in Ukraine to customers in Hungary and Slovakia, and shipped west aboard tankers in the form of LNG. Concurrently, a number of Western companies have refused to leave the Russian market, continuing to sell their wares to Russians despite sanctions and other restrictions put in place by their own governments. Some Russian observers have suggested that it’s long past time for Russia to halt economic cooperation with countries fueling the proxy war in Ukraine, in favor of ramped up trade ties with the BRICS bloc and other friendly countries in the Global South.
Security competition is the main source of conflict in the international system, as states pursuing national interests and security for themselves often undermine the security of other states. The ability to transcend nationalism by pursuing a more cosmopolitan world order is thus an attractive proposition. For Germany, with its destructive history of radical ethno-nationalism and fascism, idealist internationalism has an immense appeal.
However, is it possible to transcend power competition when the state is the highest sovereign? Should aggressive power politics be addressed by ignoring national interests or managing competing national interests? Cosmopolitanism and liberal idealism do not transcend power politics and create a global village, rather it results in the neglect of national interests and subordination to foreign powers. Aggressive nationalism will likely be the predictable backlash to ignoring national interests.
In the early 19th century, Germans fell under the lure of international idealism and failed to defend national interests. Cultural nationalism and economic nationalism became instruments for the Germans to balance the French and restore dignity and national interests. Two centuries later, Germany is yet again not capable of pursuing national interests until it decouples from American cosmopolitanism, universalism and hegemony. It seems likely, that history will repeat itself as Germany will return to cultural and economic nationalism or be condemned to vassalage and irrelevance.
German Subordination to France
In the late 18th and early 19th century, France represented a cosmopolitan universal civilisation in which development meant becoming more like France. Napoleon could thus find some people willing to support him in all countries, although internationalist initiatives usually served a French national cause.
When Napoleon invaded in the early 19th century, some German princes surrendered their sovereignty and national interests to the French with great enthusiasm. In what became known as the “shame of the princes”, many German rulers welcomed Napoleon’s annexation of the West bank of the Rhine. A combination of receiving economic compensation and fawning over France resulted in the German princes abandoning national interests and their dignity.
The Germans and other Europeans became increasingly concerned about France and the obedience demanded by allies under the Napoleonic Continental System. Under the guise of internationalism and cosmopolitanism, a system developed that was primarily for the benefit of French manufacturers. The cultural fawning over France resulted in Germans failing to further develop their own culture. While the French had promised peace under its leadership, the Europeans instead had constant war as they became instruments of war to be used against the British.
What was the solution? Germany began to pursue cultural sovereignty and economic sovereignty as conditions to restore dignity, national interests, and political sovereignty. The cosmopolitan philosophy of Voltaire and a common path to cosmopolitanism and universal civilisation were challenged by the philosophy of Johann Gottfried Herder, who argued that cultural differences should be preserved to contribute to the richness of humanity.[1] Culture is a specific link between a distinctive people required for social cohesion and societal dignity. Herder cautioned that imitation of foreign cultures made the people shallow, artificial, and weak. In Russia, there were similar concerns that imitating French culture undermined Russia’s unique development and its ability to contribute something new to the world.
Economic sovereignty was also a requirement, as Friedrich List recognised that excessive economic dependence also undermined political sovereignty:
“As long as the division of the human race into independent nations exists, political economy will as often be at variance with cosmopolitan principles… a nation would act unwisely to endeavour to promote the welfare of the whole human race at the expense of its particular strength, welfare and independence”.[2]
German Subordination to the US
Following the Second World War, the pendulum swung in the opposing direction as German national power had to be dressed up in internationalist initiatives. As Chancellor Helmut Schmidt argued in 1978, it was:
“German foreign policy rests on two great pillars: the European Community and the North Atlantic Alliance… It is all the more necessary for us to clothe ourselves in this European mantle. We need this mantle not only to cover our foreign policy nakednesses, like Berlin or Auschwitz, but we need it also to cover these ever-increasing relative strengths, economic, political, military, of the German Federal Republic within the West”.[3]
The pillars of German development were also a prison to ensure its subordination to the US. In the words of Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO’s first Secretary General, acknowledged that NATO was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”.[4] The historical role of Britain and the US had always been to prevent Germany and Russia from getting too close as it would form a centre of power capable of challenging the dominance of the maritime hegemon at the periphery. Peacetime alliances that contain and perpetuate the weakness of adversaries also ensure the dependence and obedience of allies. Much like its French predecessor, the US appeals to cosmopolitanism and universalism to manage an international system that upholds a US national cause.
Germany in Decline
Until recently, Germany had become known as the industrial engine that was driving European economies forward, while it had seemingly learned from its history by attempting to elevate liberal democratic principles above power politics.
This era is seemingly over as Germany has transformed itself in a remarkably short period of time. Germany fails to defend its basic national interests, its economy is deindustrialising, society becomes more pessimistic, the political leadership has rediscovered enthusiasm for war, German tanks are yet again burning in Kursk, there are some signs of political violence to come, the freedom of expression is undermined, and the political upheaval opens the door to political alternatives that the government rejects.
The German economic model has been broken as Germany cut itself off from Russia as a source of cheap energy and a huge export market for manufactured goods. Washington is also increasingly pressuring Germany to sever its economic ties with China as well, resulting in a less competitive economy and excessive reliance on the US. Germany’s submissiveness was demonstrated by the deafening silence when its key energy infrastructure was destroyed by allies (the US and Ukraine), while European allies such as the Czech Republic referred to the attack as legitimate and Poland told Germany to stay quiet and apologise for having built the pipeline. As Germany deindustrialises and its economy declines, the US has responded by offering subsidies to German industries that will move across the Atlantic to the US.
At the heart of the problem is that Germany no longer sufficiently defends its national interests. As the public flees to alternative media and new political parties, the government does not know how to respond. Police appear on the doorsteps of journalists, and protesters are beaten by the police for protesting a genocide in Palestine that Germany has supported with arms shipments. German Foreign Minister felt comfortable declaring that Ukraine will continue to receive support “no matter what my German voters think”. The media is dismissive of political violence against Sahra Wagenknecht on the political left, which is to some extent justified by arguing she is actually on the political right. On the actual political right, the AfD is surging to fill the vacuum left behind by an incompetent government without a plan, and the political-media elites have responded to the surge by discussing whether this opposition party should be banned. The rise of the AfD is compared to the rise of Hitler, yet the AfD is pushing for a negotiated peace in Ukraine while the government has backed military solutions.
The EU is also acting deeply irrationally in the Ukraine War. The Europeans used to recognise that the American ambition to pull Ukraine into the orbit of NATO would result in another European war. In 2008 the Europeans attempted to oppose NATO membership for Ukraine for this reason. In the words of Angela Merkel, Moscow would interpret the attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO as “a declaration of war”. Yet, they went ahead with the promise of future membership in 2008 to appease Washington. After destabilising the Ukrainian government, the Europeans were guarantors for a unity government in Kiev in 2014, but then betrayed this agreement for stability as the US pushed for a coup instead. After a war broke out in Donbas as a direct result of the coup, the Germans and French negotiated the Minsk Peace Agreement but then later admitted it was only to buy time to arm Ukraine. When Russia invaded in 2022, the Europeans were yet again silent as the US and Britain sabotaged the Istanbul Peace Agreement and instead pushed for war.
Even as Ukraine is losing the war, the Europeans do not want to discuss restoring Ukraine’s neutrality. Instead, the incoming EU foreign policy chief argues there should not be any diplomacy with Russia as Putin is a “war criminal”, and she has defined victory as breaking up Russia into many smaller nations. Hungary has attempted to restore diplomacy and negotiations and Orban travelled to Kiev, Moscow and Beijing. The EU responded by punishing Hungary. Subsequently, the EU has limited itself to the unachievable objective of defeating the world’s largest nuclear power and a vital trading partner, while rejecting any diplomatic solutions.
Resolving the problems of Germany and the EU requires some reflection on the European security architecture that was built over the past 30 years. The decision to redivide Europe and incrementally move these dividing lines to the East was a recipe for collective hegemony – not peace or stability. In the words of President Bill Clinton in January 1994, we cannot afford “to draw a new line between East and West that could create a self-fulfilling prophecy of future confrontation”.[5] Expanding NATO triggered a new Cold War over where the new dividing lines should be drawn in Europe. This has nothing to do with liberal democracy, and everything to do with advancing a unipolar world order that has now come to an end. Continuing down this path ensures that Europe will transition from a subject of security to an object of security. Reversing the path to irrelevance requires admitting the mistakes made over the past 30 years that were celebrated as virtuous politics. Without any correction, the EU will tear itself apart and Germany will continue declining in relevance.
A Nationalist Backlash to Come?
The failure to defend national interests leaves a vacuum for nationalist political forces. Nationalism can be a movement for national liberation, sovereignty, freedom and prosperity in the spirit of Johann Gottfried Herder. However, times of crisis can also produce uglier forms of nationalism. Either way, a political correction (or over-correction) will eventually come.
[1] .G. Herder book in 1784 “Ideas of the Philosophy of the History of Mankind”.
[2] List, F. 1827. Outlines of American Political Economy, in a Series of Letters. Samuel Parker, Philadelphia, p.30.
[3] Bundesbank. ‘EMS: Bundesbank Council meeting with Chancellor Schmidt (assurances on operation of EMS) [declassified 2008],’ Bundesbank Archives, N2/267, 30 November 1978.
The militarisation of Scandinavia will drastically undermine the security of the region and invite new conflicts as Russia will be compelled to respond to what could become an existential threat. Norway has decided to host at least 12 US military bases on its soil, while Finland and Sweden follow suit by transferring sovereign control over parts of their territory after they recently became NATO members. Infrastructure will be built to bring US troops faster to Russian borders, while the Baltic Sea and the Arctic will be converted into NATO seas.
Scandinavia as a Key Region for Russian Security
Ever since Kievan Rus disintegrated in the 13th century and the Russians lost their presence on the Dnieper River, a key security challenge for Russia has been its lack of reliable access to the world seas. Furthermore, economic development is also dependent on reliable access to the seas as they are the arteries of international trade. Similarly, hegemonic powers have always been required to dominate the seas, while Russia can be contained, weakened and defeated by restricting its access.
Sweden was initially such a great power. In the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, Sweden sought to restrict the access of Russia in the Baltic Sea, while also attempting to encroach upon its Arctic port in Arkhangelsk. During the “The Time of Trouble” that involved the Swedish occupation of Russia, approximately 1/3 of Russia’s entire population died. The conflict ended with the Treaty of Stolbova in 1617, which involved territorial concessions that cut off Russia’s access to the Baltic Sea. This lasted until the time of Peter the Great, who eventually defeated Sweden in the Great Northern War in 1721. The war ended Sweden’s era as a great power, while Russia became a great power due to its access to the Baltic Sea.
The dominant maritime powers, Britain and then the US, pursued similar attempts to limit Russia’s access to the world’s oceans for the next three centuries. During the Crimean War (1853-56), European diplomats had been explicit that the objective had been to push Russia back into Asia and exclude it from European affairs.[1] This explains Russia’s fierce response to the Western-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014 as Russia responded by seizing Crimea in fear of losing its strategic Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol to NATO. The US sabotage of the Minsk agreement (2015-2022) and the Istanbul peace agreement (2022) was similarly motivated by the goal of arming Ukraine to take back Crimea and make Sevastopol a NATO naval base.
The militarisation and vassalisation of Scandinavia are important to challenge Russia’s access to the two other seas on Russia’s Western borders – the Baltic Sea and the Arctic. Former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen optimistically announced that NATO expansion in Scandinavia would enable NATO to block Russia’s access to the Baltic Sea in a conflict: “After the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, the Baltic Sea will now be a NATO sea… if we wish, we can block all entry and exit to Russia through St. Petersburg”.[2] Poland and the Baltic States have also begun to casually refer to the Baltic Sea as a “NATO sea”. The Financial Times argues that “Denmark could block Russian oil tankers from reaching markets” as part of sanctions.[3] A NATO Colonel also argued that the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad would come under much greater pressure and become a “problem” for Russia: “The ascension of Finland and the upcoming ascension of Sweden will totally change the setup in the Baltic Sea region. Russia will experience Kaliningrad being surrounded”.[4]
Sweden’s NATO membership now threatens to reverse the outcome of the Great Northern War in 1721, which by implication would diminish the basic foundations of Russian security. The Battle of Poltova is recognised to have been the largest and most decisive battle of the Great Northern War that resulted in Sweden’s defeat. The videos emerging of Swedish casualties in the recent Russian missile strike on Poltova is very symbolic of the militarisation of Scandinavia.
America’s attack on Nord Stream demonstrated how control over the Baltic Sea is important to cut Russian-German economic connectivity. The US has attempted to blame the Ukrainians for the attack, suggesting that “the CIA warned Zelensky’s office to stop the operation”.[5] The admission of knowing about the attack before it happened is nonetheless interesting as the US and NATO blamed Russia for the attack and used it as a reason to intensify the naval control over the Baltic Sea and escalate the Ukraine War. This is an admission that the US lied to their own public and the world, and used the lie to escalate their wider war on Russia. The attack also demonstrates that the Americans will treat the Europeans as proxies just like they used the Ukrainians, while the Europeans would not stand up for their interests but silently accept an ally destroying their own vital energy infrastructure. The revelation also demonstrated that the people we generously refer to as journalists will not ask any critical questions or discuss objective reality if it challenges the war narrative.
Finland was perhaps the greatest success story of neutrality, yet it was converted into NATO’s longest frontline against Russia. There was no threat to Finland, yet expansion was framed as being a blow to Putin as an objective on its own. Foreign military deployments will predictably soon emerge in the north of Finland to threaten Russia’s Northern Fleet in Arkhangelsk. The pretext will most likely be the concern that Russia will want to seize part of Lapland in the north of Finland. It will make no sense whatsoever, but obedient media will drum up the required fear.
The militarisation of Norway has followed a gradual incrementalism. Initially, US troops were stationed in Norway on a rotating basis, which enabled the government to claim they were not permanently deployed. In 2021, Norway and the US agreed on a few military bases but called them “dedicated areas” as Norway officially does not allow foreign bases on its soil. The US has full control and jurisdiction over these territories and the US media refers to them as military bases that will enable the US to confront Russia in the Arctic, but the Norwegian political-media elites must still refer to them as “dedicated areas” and dismiss that they have any offensive purposes. The frog is slowly boiling, believing it has identical interests to its masters in Washington.
Ignoring the Security Competition when Interpreting the Ukraine War
As Scandinavia is converted from a region of peace to a US frontline, one would expect more debate about this historical shift. Yet, the political-media elites have already reached the consensus that expanding NATO enhances our security due to greater military force and deterrence. More weapons rarely result in more peace, although this is the logic of hegemonic peace that this generation of politicians has committed themselves to.
The point of departure in security politics is the security competition. If increasing the security of country A decreases the security of country B, then country B will likely be compelled to enhance its security in a manner that reduces security for country A. The security competition can be mitigated by deterring the adversary without provoking a response, which is ideally organised through an inclusive security architecture.
Scandinavia’s ability to be a region of peace relied on mastering the deterrence/reassurance balance. Finland and Sweden were neutral states and were an important part of the belt of neutral states from the north to the south of Europe during the Cold War, which contributed to reducing tensions. Norway was a NATO member but imposed restrictions on itself by not hosting foreign military bases on its soil and limiting the military activities of allies in the Arctic region. It was common sense that security derived from deterring the Soviets without provoking them, this common sense is now long gone.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is cited as the main reason why Finland and Sweden had to abandon their neutrality and join NATO. This logic makes sense when ignoring security competition as Russia’s actions then occur in a vacuum. Acceptable discussions about the Ukraine War are limited by the premise that Russia’s invasion was “unprovoked”, and any efforts to widen the debate by addressing NATO’s role can be shut down with accusations of “legitimising” Russia’s invasion.
NATO expansion caused the Ukraine War, and the response to this war was NATO expansion to Finland and Sweden. This twisted logic prevails as the narrative of an “unprovoked” invasion has become immune to facts. German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, explained that she had opposed offering Ukraine the Membership Action Plan to join NATO in 2008 as it would have been interpreted by Moscow as “a declaration of war”.[6] Wikileaks also revealed that Germans believed that pushing NATO expansionism could “break up the country”.[7] William Burns, the US Ambassador to Moscow and now the current Director of the CIA, warned that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite”.[8] Burns warned of the consequences:
“Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests… Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face”.[9]
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO’s Secretary General in 2008, recognised that NATO should have respected Russia’s red lines and should therefore not have pledged membership to Ukraine and Georgia in 2008.[10] Former US Secretary of Defence and CIA Director Robert Gates also acknowledged the mistake as “Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching”.[11] Even the support for bringing Ukraine into NATO had dubious intensions. In late March 2008, one week before the NATO Summit in Bucharest where Ukraine was promised future membership, Tony Blair told American political leaders how they should manage Russia. Blair argued the strategy “should be to make Russia a ‘little desperate’ with our activities in areas bordering on what Russia considers its sphere of interest and along its actual borders. Russia had to be shown firmness and sown with seeds of confusion”.[12]
In September 2023, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gleefully argued that Russia’s actions to prevent NATO expansion would now result in more NATO expansion.
“President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And [it] was a pre-condition for not invading Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that. The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO… We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite. He has got more NATO presence in eastern part of the Alliance and he has also seen that Finland has already joined the Alliance and Sweden will soon be a full member”.[13]
Stoltenberg did not specify why he thought more NATO expansion would increase security if NATO expansion was the cause of the war. However, NATO also insists that Ukraine must become part of NATO as Russia would not dare to attack a NATO country, while NATO also argues that Russia must be stopped in Ukraine as Russia will thereafter attack NATO countries. Much like the recognition of security competition, the logic is also absent.
Blinded by Ideological Fundamentalism
Scandinavia’s recognition of security competition has suffered from what is referred to in the literature as “ideological fundamentalism”. Actors are seen as either good or bad based on political identities that have been assigned by ideology. Ideological fundamentalism reduces the ability to recognise that one’s own policies and actions may constitute a threat to others, because one’s own political identity is held to be indisputably positive and dissociated from any threatening behaviour. There is a lack of understanding for why Russia would feel threatened by NATO expansion even after Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and the proxy war in Ukraine. NATO is merely a “defensive alliance”, even as it bombs countries that never threatened it. Ideological fundamentalism can best be explained by President Reagan’s reaction to how Able Archer, a NATO military exercise in 1983 that almost triggered a nuclear war. Convinced that the US was a force for good that was fighting an evil empire, he was bewildered that the Soviets did not see it the same way:
“Three years had taught me something surprising about the Russians: Many people at the top of the Soviet hierarchy were genuinely afraid of America and Americans… I’d always felt that from our deeds it must be clear to anyone that Americans were a moral people who starting at the birth of our nation had always used our power only as a force of good in the world”.[14]
Trapped in the tribal mindset of “us” versus “them”, the Scandinavians exaggerate what “we” have in common, and dismiss any commonality with “them”. It is assumed that the US shares the interests of Scandinavia, and is primarily building a military presence there to provide security. The US has a security strategy based on hegemony, which is dependent on weakening all emerging rivals. The US Security Strategy of 2002 explicitly linked national security to global dominance as the objective to “dissuade future military competition” should be achieved by advancing “the unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their forward presence”.[15] While Scandinavia has an interest in maintaining peaceful borders with Russia, the US has defined its interests in destabilising Russian borders.[16] Peacetime alliances are reliant on perpetuating conflicts rather than solving them as conflict ensures loyalty from the protectorate and the containment of the adversary. In his famous work on how to advance and perpetuate US global hegemony, Brzezinski wrote the US must “prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and keep the barbarians from coming together”.[17]
A Lack of Political Imagination to Move Beyond Bloc Politics
The Scandinavians recognise that their security has been reliant on the US since the end of the Second World War, and they simply do not have the political imagination for other security arrangements. If it worked then, why should it not work now? As security competition is no longer a consideration, the Scandinavians conveniently neglect that NATO was a status quo actor during the Cold War, while after the Cold War it became a revisionist actor by expanding and attacking other countries in what NATO refers to as “out-of-area” operations.
The lack of alternatives to NATO enables the US to simply demand “alliance solidarity” as a code word for bloc discipline. Case in point, in the 2000s Norway was criticising the US missile defence system that threatened the nuclear balance as it could enable a US first strike. Wikileaks revealed that the US Ambassador reported that the US was pressuring the Norwegian government, political figures, journalists, and think tank researchers to overcome Norway’s firm opposition to missile defence, or at least “to a minimum counter Russian misstatements and distinguish Norway’s position from Russia’s to avoid damaging alliance solidarity”.[18] It was argued that “thanks to our high-level visitors”, Norway had begun to “quietly continue work in NATO on missile defence and to publicly criticise Russia for provocative statements” (Wikileaks, 2007b).[19] In the words of US Ambassador Whitney, Norway had to “adjust to current realities” since it would have a “hard time defending its position if the issue shifts to one of alliance solidarity”.[20] Following the Norwegian U-turn on missile defence, it was declared in the Norwegian Parliament that “it is important for the political cohesion of the alliance not to let the opposition, perhaps especially from Russia, hinder progress and feasible solutions”.[21]
The world is yet again undergoing dramatic change as it changes from a unipolar to a multipolar world order. The US will increasingly shift its focus and resources to Asia, which will change the trans-Atlantic relationship. The US will be able to offer less to the Europeans, but it will demand more loyalty in terms of economics and security. The Europeans will have to sever their economic ties to American rivals which will result in less prosperity and more dependence. The US will also expect the Europeans to militarise the economic competition with China, and NATO has already become the most obvious vehicle for this purpose. Instead of adjusting to multipolarity by diversifying their ties and pursuing opportunities from the rise of Asia, the Europeans are doing the opposite by subordinating themselves further to the US in the hope that it will increase the value of NATO.
Scandinavia was a region of peace as it attempted to mitigate the security competition. As Scandinavia surrenders its sovereignty to the US for protection against an imaginary threat, the region will be converted into a frontline that will unavoidably trigger new conflicts. The only certainty is that when Russia reacts to these provocations, we will all chant “unprovoked” in unison and make some obscure reference to democracy.
[1] J.W. Kipp and W.B. Lincoln, ‘Autocracy and Reform Bureaucratic Absolutism and Political Modernization in Nineteenth-Century Russia’, Russian History, vol.6, no.1, 1979, p.4.
[2] Lrt, ‘Putin’s plan includes Baltics, says former NATO chief’, Lrt, 19 July 2022.
[3] H. Foy, R. Milne and D. Sheppard, Denmark could block Russian oil tankers from reaching markets, Financial Times, 15 November 2023.
[4] E. Zubriūtė, Kaliningrad is no longer our problem, but Russia’s’ – interview with NATO colonel, LRT, 13 November 2023.
[5] B. Pancevski, A Drunken Evening, a Rented Yacht: The Real Story of the Nord Stream Pipeline Sabotage, The Wall Street Jounral, 14 August 2024.
[6] A. Walsh, ‘Angela Merkel opens up on Ukraine, Putin and her legacy’, Deutsche Welle, 7 June 2022.
[7] Wikileaks, ‘Germany/Russia: Chancellery views on MAP for Ukraine and Georgia’, Wikileaks, 6 June 2008.
[8] W.J. Burns, The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal, New York, Random House, 2019, p.233.
[9] W.J. Burns, ‘Nyet means nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines’, Wikileaks, 1 February 2008.
[10] G.J. Dennekamp, De Hoop Scheffer: Poetin werd radicaler door NAVO’ [De Hoop Scheffer: Putin became more radical because of NATO], NOS, 7 January 2018.
[11] R.M. Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, New York, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2014.
[12] Telegraph, ‘Tony Blair and John McCain talk about Israel/Palestine and Russia handling’, The Telegraph, 27 March 2008.
[13] J. Stoltenberg, ‘Opening remarks’, NATO, 7 September 2023.
[14] Reagan, R., 1990. An American Life: The Autobiography. Simon and Schuster, New York, p.74.
[15] NSS, ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’, The White House, June 2002.
[16] RAND, ‘Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground’, RAND Corporation, 24 April 2019.
[17] Z. Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geopolitical Imperatives, New York, Basic Books, 1997, p.40.
[18] Wikileaks, 2007. Norway: Missile defense public diplomacy and outreach, OSLO 000248, US Embassy, Oslo, 13 March
[19] Wikileaks, 2007. Positive movements in the missile defence debate in Norway but no breakthrough, OSLO 000614, US Embassy, Oslo, 8 June
[20] Wikileaks, 2008. Norway standing alone against missile defense, OSLO 000072, US Embassy, Oslo, 12 February.
VLADIVOSTOK, Russia – Global demand for gas is set to increase by at least 10–12% over the next 20 years, with the possibility for even higher growth, Russian First Deputy Energy Minister Pavel Sorokin has said.
“The demand for gas is increasing globally. It will grow by at least 10-12% over the next 20 years, up to 4.5-4.6 trillion cubic meters of gas per year. However, the potential is even greater,” Sorokin said on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF).
At the same time, global demand for liquefied natural gas (LNG) is expected to rise to 580–600 million tonnes over the next six to seven years, up from the current 400 million tonnes. Over the next 20 years, demand could reach up to 700 million tonnes, which would allow LNG to surpass pipeline gas in terms of trade, Sorokin added.
The Eastern Economic Forum began on Tuesday and will run through Friday. It is being hosted by the Far Eastern Federal University in Russia’s Pacific coast city of Vladivostok. Sputnik is the general information partner of the EEF 2024.
Russia is not behind the emerging global trend towards dropping the US dollar in trade, President Vladimir Putin told the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok on Thursday.
The event is being attended by members of the BRICS economic bloc, including India and China – both of which are actively using national currencies to settle transactions with Russia.
However, Moscow is not pursuing a “policy of de-dollarization,” Putin said during a plenary session at the forum.
He said the US dollar had become the dominant currency after World War II, when Washington successfully capitalized on the outcome of the conflict. Today, however, the ill-conceived and unprofessional actions of the US government are pushing countries to abandon the reserve currency, he added.
”Russia did not refuse to settle transactions in dollars, rather it was refused this option,” said Putin.
After the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, the US cut off Russia’s central bank from dollar transactions and later banned the export of dollar banknotes to the country as part of an unprecedented sanctions campaign against Moscow.
As a result, Russia and its BRICS partners are now using national currencies in 65% of mutual trade settlements, Putin said.
The BRICS economic bloc was founded in 2006 by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, with South Africa joining in 2011. Russia currently holds the chairmanship of the bloc. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates joined the group at the start of this year. Earlier this week, Türkiye formally applied to become a member.
The United States has been widely accused of using the dollar as a weapon against its rivals by imposing sanctions and freezing assets. Foreign Affairs magazine wrote in June that the sanctions on Russia “undoubtedly left other central banks wondering whether their own dollar-denominated rainy-day funds would be locked up should their governments run afoul of Washington.”
I was interviewed by the China Academy regarding the strategic partnership between Russia and China. The strategic partnership was formed by two profound historical changes in the international system that occurred around the same time: Russia’s decoupling from the West and the rise of China as the soon-to-be world’s leading economy.
The first historical shift is the end of Russia looking to the West for modernisation and development. Russia has pursued a Western-centric foreign policy for the past 300-years, and after the Cold War pursued the overarching objective of creating an inclusive European security architecture based on the vision of Gorbachev’s Common European Home. The project of Greater Europe died in February 2014 with the Western-backed coup in Ukraine, which ended all hopes of a gradual integration with the West. Over the past 300 years, there have been several attempts in the West to push Russia back into Asia – although this time the East is no longer an economic backwater. Russia subsequently replaced “Greater Europe” with the “Greater Eurasia Initiative” as it began reorganising its economy toward a more accommodating and economically vibrant East.
The second historical shift is the rise of China, which has outgrown the US-administered international economic system. The Global Financial Crisis of 2008-9 was a wake-up call as the US demonstrated it would not restore fiscal discipline, which implied that the stability of the system would continue to erode. China demonstrated both the intention and ability to challenge US geoeconomic leadership by pursuing ambitious industrial policies to assert technological and industrial leadership, investing trillions of dollars into physical connectivity with the Belt and Road Initiative, and new financial architecture with development banks, payment systems and de-dollarisation.
The West assumed the partnership of China and Russia was a “marriage of convenience” as the common interests of opposing US hegemony was superficial and they would likely clash over the dominance of Central Asia. This prediction failed to recognise that both China and Russia need each other to develop a new international economic architecture, and as neither side pursues hegemony they have the ability to accommodate each other’s strategic interests. The efforts by the US to break both Russia and the China at the same time has pushed these two giants together in what can only be described as Kissinger’s worst nightmare. The strategic partnership has also laid the foundation for a new international economic architecture that pulls in other centres of power.
US microchip giant Intel faces what’s been characterized as the most difficult moment in its 56-year history, hiring banksters to advise the company on whether to trim, slash or sell off its manufacturing business. That’s bad news for Washington, which greenlit $280 billion in funding in 2022 toward boosting domestic semiconductor manufacturing.
Intel’s stock has had a rough year-to-date, plummeting nearly 60% since January and falling off a cliff in early August as investors led by billionaire Warren Buffett began a massive selloff which led leading tech stocks to shed nearly $3 trillion in value amid a perfect storm of recession fears, concerns over rising AI-related capital expenditure, and inflation.
The shock stock drop shed more light on the difficult situation at Intel, with a flurry of reports beginning late last week citing informed sources revealing that the company is in the “most difficult period in its 56-year history,” looking for strategic advice from the likes of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, and considering selling off its chip manufacturing capacity.
The news carries grave significance for Washington, with Axiospointing out in a report last Friday that Intel isn’t just one of America’s oldest US chipmakers, but “a key national security asset,” signaling the US’s ability (or as it happens, inability) to compete with Taiwan, South Korea, China and other chip-making power players in an increasingly demanding world market for microchips.
All eyes are now on Intel’s mid-September board of directors meeting, at which company CEO Pat Gelsinger is expected to present the company’s recovery plan, from cost cuts achieved by shedding “unnecessary businesses,” possibly including US-based programmable chip manufacturing, and even the potential sale of its foundry business to a foreign buyer like TSMC.
Intel currently has more than two dozen fab and post-fab sites, most of them in Oregon, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Colorado and Ohio, but also Ireland and Israel. The potential slash in investment threatens to jeopardize the company’s ambitious expansion plans, both domestically and in Germany and Poland, with capital expenditures expected to drop by $10 billion, to $21.5 billion, in 2025. Among the casualties is a reported move to freeze construction of a $32.8 billion factory complex in Magdeburg, Germany.
Intel’s troubles are also bad news for the Biden administration specifically, which pumped $8.5 billion into the company’s coffers in March from the 2022 $280 billion CHIPS & Science Act, which includes $39 billion in subsidies for US chip manufacturing, $13 billion for semiconductor research and workforce training, and major tax incentives. Intel also enjoys up to $11 billion in Chips Act loans for modernization and new production.
The current administration has made subsidies to microchip manufacturing a key plank of its economic agenda. In addition to a broad array of civilian uses, from computers to vehicles, companies like Intel produce chips for use in military and space applications.
The company’s multi-year $100 billion+ US expansion plans fell to the wayside after its stagnant second-quarter earnings ($12.8 billion), sparking massive layoffs of over 15% of its workforce in August. The same month, veteran exec Lip-Bu Tan resigned from Intel’s board, reportedly over differences about the future of the company, and its failure to listen to proposals to make Intel’s contract manufacturing more customer-centric.
“Simply put, we must align our cost structure with our new operating model and fundamentally change the way we operate,” Intel chief Pat Gelsinger wrote in a memo in early August while announcing the cuts and firings.
A pioneer in microchip manufacturing and the developer of the Intel 4004 – the world’s first commercial microprocessor, in the 1970s, Intel produced the most popular chip of the 80s – the Intel 8088, which ended up powering the IBM PC. Fast forward to the 1990s, and Intel’s engineers developed the revolutionary 32 bit Pentium x86 processors – which were heavily improved upon by former Soviet supercomputer designer Vladimir Pentkovski. In the late 2008, Intel introduced the Intel Core lineup of multicore processers, assuring it superiority over competitors for over a decade before being surpassed by AMD in 2022. A few short years on, Intel has dropped out of the top ten largest global microchip manufacturers entirely by market capitalization.
Analyses by the New York Fed and the Center for Strategic and International Studies confirm that US semiconductor companies are losing tens of billions of dollars per year in sales. In an 18-month period immediately following strict sanctions against US chip exports to China, US companies lost an average of $770 million in market capitalization, with $130 billion in lost market cap industry wide.
In company-specific examples, Micron has lost half of its revenues as a result of China export restrictions. In 2024 alone, Qualcomm will forego $10 billion in lost sales of 7-nanometer chips which are now manufactured by SMIC, a Chinese semiconductor firm.
The United States now faces strong challenges from companies in allied countries, who are resisting calls to further decouple from China’s semiconductor market, the world’s largest.
Commerce Department Implements New Export Controls on Advanced Computing and Semiconductor Manufacturing Items to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/doc…
US calls for Netherlands, Germany, South Korea, Japan to tighten chip curbs on China, drawing resistance from allies https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-war/ar…
The Russia-China New Land Grain Corridor enables Russia to replace the US and Europe in the Chinese grain market.
BRICS enables the decoupling from US agriculture with the development of a new post-American International economic system. This includes a grain exchange, new logistic centres, transportation infrastructure, development banks, native technologies and digital platforms, de-dollarisation, and the abandonment of the SWIFT transaction system. The benefits for Russia, China and other partners include greater food security, cheaper exchanges, less reliance on an inflated and weaponised US dollar.
Without US surveillance of global trade through the dollar, SWIFT and commodity exchanges, the US and its farmers cannot even see the world markets in terms of global demand and supplies. The problem is exacerbated by Western sanctions and economic coercion, as Russia and China have further incentives to not share market information with the US and its farmers. Thus, US farmers and investors do not get the information required to plan what to grow and how much. China has been cancelling huge contracts with the US, and the US cannot even be sure who is replacing its agricultural supplies.
The US weaponisation of trade will continue to encourage the rest of the world to reduce their dependence on the US and find more reliable economic partners.
Hungary cannot survive without Russian oil, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has warned, stressing that Ukraine’s decision to suspend transit poses a serious challenge for Budapest.
Kiev halted the transit of crude supplied by Russian energy giant Lukoil via the Druzhba pipeline in June, citing sanctions. The measure has directly hit landlocked Hungary and Slovakia, depriving them of oil previously exported by Lukoil through Ukrainian territory.
In an interview with Russian business daily RBK on Monday, Szijjarto said Hungary will be completely deprived of oil without supplies from Russia.
“We will not be able to feed the country in a broad sense. We simply will not be able to meet the demand for fuel… because we do not have sufficient alternative infrastructure,” the diplomat said.
“You just have to look at the numbers… We do not want to take such risks,” Szijjarto added. “Therefore, the fact that Ukraine has made such a decision is a very serious challenge for us. It affects about a third of our imports from Russia. In Slovakia, the situation is even worse, these supplies account for about 40% there,” he stressed.
Kiev imposed sanctions on Lukoil in 2018, having banned the company from divesting its business in the country, as well as prohibiting trade operations and participation in the privatization or leasing of state property. Lukoil still sent crude via the southern arm of the Druzhba pipeline as EU sanctions did not target these flows.
The EU prohibited transport of Russian crude oil by sea in December 2022 as part of far-reaching sanctions on Moscow over the Ukraine conflict. Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic have been granted exemptions by Brussels as they source alternative supplies.
Slovakia and Hungary are the only EU member states that have rejected the bloc’s policies on supplying Kiev with military aid amid the conflict with Moscow. Both states have repeatedly called for the crisis to be solved through diplomacy.
Last week, Politico reported that Budapest had proposed a solution for the restoration of halted Russian oil flows by rebranding Lukoil products. That way, the crude shipped via Ukraine could be officially sold to Hungarian energy giant MOL before it crosses the border. The arrangement could reportedly mean paying an additional $1.50 per barrel to secure transit outside of previous agreements.
Szijjarto told RBK that a temporary solution to the crisis situation could be found, stressing that “in the long term, we need to look for another, legally significant solution.”
The Hungarian diplomat traveled to Russia last week to discuss energy security issues. Budapest is “satisfied with Russian energy cooperation, which is one of the guarantees of the country’s food security,” Szijjarto wrote on Facebook after meeting with the head of Russian energy giant Gazprom, Aleksey Miller.
Russia has overtaken the US to once again become the second-largest supplier of natural gas to the EU, Die Welt reported on Sunday, citing analysis. The German newspaper added that the symbolism of the development is “huge.”
Brussels declared the elimination of its reliance on Russian energy as one of its key priorities after hostilities in the Ukraine conflict broke out in February 2022. Expensive US liquified natural gas (LNG) filled up a large portion of the market, exacerbating economic crises throughout the EU.
In the second quarter of 2024, Russian gas accounted for roughly 17% of all EU imports, just ahead of supplies from the US, Welt noted, citing the Brussels-based think-tank Bruegel. According to its figures, European customers received 12.27 billion cubic meters of US LNG over that period or time, while Russia delivered 12.73 billion cubic meters to the bloc.
The Russian supplies include both LNG and pipeline gas, which flows to the EU via Belarus and Ukraine and through the TurkStream undersea gas pipeline. Kiev, which receives transit fees for fuel delivered through its territory, has threatened to suspend operations after the current contract expires at the end of 2024. However, it has indicated that it is open to third nations, such as Azerbaijan, stepping up their use of Soviet-built infrastructure.
Dmitry Birichevsky, head of the economic cooperation department at the Russian Foreign Ministry, has described the gas import dynamics as a testament to the failure of EU sanctions policy.
“While it’s true that the indicators are significantly lower than before 2022, the facts speak for themselves,” he told RIA Novosti on Monday. “Greece alone has ramped up the purchase of Russian gas fourfold over 2023.”
The US has sought to replace Russia as an energy supplier to Europe since before the Ukraine conflict. The administration of President Donald Trump infamously branded American LNG “molecules of freedom”, when it pressured the EU nations to select it over Russian gas. Norway has historically been the top supplier of gas to the market.
Moscow now considers the EU an unreliable customer, which has shown that it is willing to let US political goals trump its economic needs.
“Under the circumstances of the de facto economic war declared on us, our plans to redirect foreign trade to the nations of the Global South and East remain a priority,” Birichevsky said.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 