The View from the Throne
Military conflict appears very different depending upon your vantage point. How you perceive the battlefield when you are on it will be radically different from the way it looks from, say, Washington, and more different still, from Wall Street. Seeing as how our lands are quite often battlefields, we tend to view these conflicts from the single vantage point on the ground.
From here, of course, the imperative is to engage the invading or aggressive military forces. It is to upgrade our weapons capabilities and degrade the capabilities of the enemy. We deal on a block by block, district by district basis. Victory, indeed survival, requires us to be this way. From the ground, the urgent thing is how to prevent an air strike, how to evade it, and if possible, how to bring down a fighter jet. From this vantage point, the concerns are immediate, tactical for short term wins; planning ambushes, striking checkpoints and convoys, etc. The medium to long term planning is also within the framework of battlefield immediacy; can we develop methods for scrambling the signals of drones? Can we manufacture our own weapons, and so on. If enough small victories are achieved, perhaps they will build the final triumph.
From Washington, as you might expect, the view is very different. Weapons and support for you and for your opponent are two valves, side by side, opened and shut with careful synchronicity to maintain a balance of power on the battlefield, until an atmosphere is created that is conducive for the inevitable political solution to be crafted, proposed, and imposed by politicians from each government involved in the conflict. This process is expensive, of course, and these expenses will be explained as vital to the national security interests of the country when they submit their budget requests to Congress. Congress will concur with that assessment, not because the expenses are vital to national security, but because they entered congress, in part, with the considerable financial support of the aerospace and defense industry.
From Wall Street, like from the ground on the battlefield, every downed fighter jet, every disabled tank, every fired missile (whether it hits its target or not), is celebrated. Unlike on the battlefield, however, every bombed hospital, every demolished bridge, every devastated city, no matter which side of the conflict is affected by it, is also celebrated. Where we see rubble, they see a market. Where we see a loss for the enemy when his weapons are destroyed, they see a guaranteed sale of new merchandise. Regardless of which side in the war is momentarily prevailing, from Wall Street, they see the victory of a climbing share price. Every major sector of the American economy is connected to military production; technology, construction, telecommunications, aerospace, the automotive industry, and obviously defense and weapons; everything. Through every major financial crisis of the last two decades, war based industries have enjoyed uninterrupted prosperity.
The combined political power of these industries is unequaled in the United States. Their economic power dwarfs that of many small countries. And, when we talk about companies, we are not talking about faceless entities; we are in fact talking about their owners; the corporate shareholders. We are talking about the super rich who organize their wealth in the form of corporations. They finance politicians, essentially hiring them as they would a CEO, and assign them the task of increasing share values for their companies; and they do this through government policy. If they fail to do this, like an unsuccessful CEO, they will be replaced.
Military conflict appears very different depending upon your vantage point. How you perceive the battlefield when you are on it will be radically different from the way it looks from, say, Washington, and more different still, from Wall Street. Seeing as how our lands are quite often battlefields, we tend to view these conflicts from the single vantage point on the ground.
From here, of course, the imperative is to engage the invading or aggressive military forces. It is to upgrade our weapons capabilities and degrade the capabilities of the enemy. We deal on a block by block, district by district basis. Victory, indeed survival, requires us to be this way. From the ground, the urgent thing is how to prevent an air strike, how to evade it, and if possible, how to bring down a fighter jet. From this vantage point, the concerns are immediate, tactical for short term wins; planning ambushes, striking checkpoints and convoys, etc. The medium to long term planning is also within the framework of battlefield immediacy; can we develop methods for scrambling the signals of drones? Can we manufacture our own weapons, and so on. If enough small victories are achieved, perhaps they will build the final triumph.
From Washington, as you might expect, the view is very different. Weapons and support for you and for your opponent are two valves, side by side, opened and shut with careful synchronicity to maintain a balance of power on the battlefield, until an atmosphere is created that is conducive for the inevitable political solution to be crafted, proposed, and imposed by politicians from each government involved in the conflict. This process is expensive, of course, and these expenses will be explained as vital to the national security interests of the country when they submit their budget requests to Congress. Congress will concur with that assessment, not because the expenses are vital to national security, but because they entered congress, in part, with the considerable financial support of the aerospace and defense industry.
From Wall Street, like from the ground on the battlefield, every downed fighter jet, every disabled tank, every fired missile (whether it hits its target or not), is celebrated. Unlike on the battlefield, however, every bombed hospital, every demolished bridge, every devastated city, no matter which side of the conflict is affected by it, is also celebrated. Where we see rubble, they see a market. Where we see a loss for the enemy when his weapons are destroyed, they see a guaranteed sale of new merchandise. Regardless of which side in the war is momentarily prevailing, from Wall Street, they see the victory of a climbing share price. Every major sector of the American economy is connected to military production; technology, construction, telecommunications, aerospace, the automotive industry, and obviously defense and weapons; everything. Through every major financial crisis of the last two decades, war based industries have enjoyed uninterrupted prosperity.
The combined political power of these industries is unequaled in the United States. Their economic power dwarfs that of many small countries. And, when we talk about companies, we are not talking about faceless entities; we are in fact talking about their owners; the corporate shareholders. We are talking about the super rich who organize their wealth in the form of corporations. They finance politicians, essentially hiring them as they would a CEO, and assign them the task of increasing share values for their companies; and they do this through government policy. If they fail to do this, like an unsuccessful CEO, they will be replaced.
Thus, the overwhelming driver of policy is this; to serve the financial interests of the owners of the government. As long as a policy achieves this, that policy will continue. If you are interested in changing that policy, there is only one way: you have to ensure that it fails to achieve its aim. And you have to understand its aim, not from the vantage point on the ground, not from the vantage point of the policy's victims, but from the vantage point of those who benefit from it.
Ukraine is about to become the 3rd biggest recipient of US military aid after israel and Egypt. In other words, the 3rd most useful pretext for funnelling money to American defense companies. Putin is almost getting edged out of the decision for a Russian invasion of Ukraine...it almost seems the US will not tolerate anything but a military conflict at this point
❤1👌1
Just letting everyone know, the Middle Nation Podcast is now available on most major podcasting platforms, in case you like listening on those apps and whatnot.
👌2
Salaam everyone, just as a precaution, I have set up a mirror channel on Odysee -- just in case YouTube objects to any of my opinions. FYI
https://odysee.com/@MiddleNation:6
https://odysee.com/@MiddleNation:6
Odysee
Middle Nation
Welcome to the Middle Nation channel, the new incarnation of the former Qawwamun channel. Here we will broaden our discussion of issues relevant to the Muslim Ummah beyond the scope of our previous f...
👍1👌1
One take away from the Ukraine situation is that it demonstrates the extent to which the importance of Europe to the United States has diminished. This must surely be occurring to EU leaders right now. America is willing to risk throwing the continent into war, energy shortages, and disunity -- in essence, ending 70 years of relative stability, over the completely unnecessary insistence on Ukraine and Georgia becoming Nato members. This is an unmistakable message to Europe that they have dropped significantly on America's list of priorities.
👍5
There has never been a serious question as to whether or not Russia could demolish Ukraine militarily and establish dominance in the short-term. Russia, however, does not have the capability to manage an occupation in a country the size of Ukraine, and I believe America is hoping that this will become Russia's Iraq. Putin has made it clear that one of his goals is to install a puppet regime (like the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and many, many other places). But the likelihood of the Ukrainian population capitulating to such a puppet regime is low, and the US can certainly guarantee a prolonged insurgency by backing both domestic nationalist groups and a steady supply of mercenaries.
The suggestion that Russia is intent on re-establishing the old Soviet Union is a non-starter -- Russia does not have the capability to do this. An occupation of Ukraine will bleed Russia beyond recovery; forget about opening up new fronts in the former Soviet republics. But the point here is not really Russia or Ukraine, it is Europe. Extracting Russia from the global economy does not seriously impact the United States, but it will be devastating for Europe (as well as many developing nations). This is de-globalisation accelerated; the abandonment of the post-WWII world order; and Europe is going to have to fend for itself -- country by country.
The Ukraine war can be described, quite accurately I believe, as a proxy war by the US against Europe.
The suggestion that Russia is intent on re-establishing the old Soviet Union is a non-starter -- Russia does not have the capability to do this. An occupation of Ukraine will bleed Russia beyond recovery; forget about opening up new fronts in the former Soviet republics. But the point here is not really Russia or Ukraine, it is Europe. Extracting Russia from the global economy does not seriously impact the United States, but it will be devastating for Europe (as well as many developing nations). This is de-globalisation accelerated; the abandonment of the post-WWII world order; and Europe is going to have to fend for itself -- country by country.
The Ukraine war can be described, quite accurately I believe, as a proxy war by the US against Europe.
👍4❤1
A 2014 report by the World Bank evaluates the details of the usefulness of violent conflict for imposing the neoliberal program. The report compares and contrasts the macroeconomic situations in countries with and without violent conflict.
Approximately 20% of the world's poor live in conflict zones, a statistic which already reveals the advantages of violent crisis for neoliberal progress.
The World Bank questioned its collaborators in countries experiencing violent instability and in countries without such conditions. 64% of respondents in conflict zones felt their countries 'were moving in the right direction, only 51% agreed in non-conflict zones'.
World Bank collaborators, what they refer to as "stakeholders", saw greater opportunities for neoliberal conquest in the areas of energy, agriculture, transport, and privatization of state enterprises and assets in countries of violent crisis than in countries without bloody conflict.
Approximately 20% of the world's poor live in conflict zones, a statistic which already reveals the advantages of violent crisis for neoliberal progress.
The World Bank questioned its collaborators in countries experiencing violent instability and in countries without such conditions. 64% of respondents in conflict zones felt their countries 'were moving in the right direction, only 51% agreed in non-conflict zones'.
World Bank collaborators, what they refer to as "stakeholders", saw greater opportunities for neoliberal conquest in the areas of energy, agriculture, transport, and privatization of state enterprises and assets in countries of violent crisis than in countries without bloody conflict.
👍1
Just to clarify; my interest in the Ukraine war is not because I have any particular concern about Ukraine or Russia – overall, this is not a conflict about which Muslims need to feel obliged to take sides. My interest is in the ramifications of the conflict, and what it suggests about the trajectory of Europe and American foreign policy.
Of course, there are indirect consequences to this war that will impact Muslims globally – the rise in the oil price will increase the budgets of Saudi Arabia, UAE, and the Gulf States, which will likely lead to intensification of the war on Yemen, and further expansion of the UAE’s sphere of influence through militarization and regional investment; the price of wheat will increase which will lead to shortages in the Arab world and food inflation (and we know what happened last time this occurred); availability of fertilizers will be reduced, which will harm farming in the Muslim world (particularly in Africa), and there may well be famines as a result; export-led economies like Malaysia will face challenges in their post-Covid recovery plans, and so on. It is not that this conflict does not affect our people, just because it is predominantly a war that does not directly involve us.
But, for me, the most important thing about what is happening is that it signifies an abandonment of the US-sponsored post-WWII world order and an acceleration in the process of de-globalisation. Modern Europe was underwritten by American security over global trade as a strategy for confronting the USSR – those days are over. The US does not appear to regard Europe’s safety or prosperity as a priority anymore, which means that each country on the continent will soon have to fend for itself, and we are likely to see a return to what Europe has historically always been – divided, desperate, and war torn. As power has increasingly transferred to the private sector and multinational (anational) corporations, there is less regard for the wellbeing and stability of states; and Europe will not be spared.
This should be an impetus for the Muslim world to develop a revived and reformed concept of the old non-aligned movement of the Cold War era, and pursue a union of Muslim states to create a trade corridor across the Muslim world, independent of the West or global North, including the facilitation of travel, capital flows, and preferential investment agreements. I say “Muslim union” and not “Islamic union” deliberately, because unity and cohesion cannot feasibly be achieved across the Muslim world on the basis of any particular definition of what constitutes “Islamic”, but may be feasible on the basis of fundamental brotherhood.
Ukraine is the canary in the mine shaft, Europe is moving towards catastrophic decline, and our nations must prepare for a future in which we can create prosperity and political independence for our Ummah. This is why I am interested in what is happening in Ukraine.
Of course, there are indirect consequences to this war that will impact Muslims globally – the rise in the oil price will increase the budgets of Saudi Arabia, UAE, and the Gulf States, which will likely lead to intensification of the war on Yemen, and further expansion of the UAE’s sphere of influence through militarization and regional investment; the price of wheat will increase which will lead to shortages in the Arab world and food inflation (and we know what happened last time this occurred); availability of fertilizers will be reduced, which will harm farming in the Muslim world (particularly in Africa), and there may well be famines as a result; export-led economies like Malaysia will face challenges in their post-Covid recovery plans, and so on. It is not that this conflict does not affect our people, just because it is predominantly a war that does not directly involve us.
But, for me, the most important thing about what is happening is that it signifies an abandonment of the US-sponsored post-WWII world order and an acceleration in the process of de-globalisation. Modern Europe was underwritten by American security over global trade as a strategy for confronting the USSR – those days are over. The US does not appear to regard Europe’s safety or prosperity as a priority anymore, which means that each country on the continent will soon have to fend for itself, and we are likely to see a return to what Europe has historically always been – divided, desperate, and war torn. As power has increasingly transferred to the private sector and multinational (anational) corporations, there is less regard for the wellbeing and stability of states; and Europe will not be spared.
This should be an impetus for the Muslim world to develop a revived and reformed concept of the old non-aligned movement of the Cold War era, and pursue a union of Muslim states to create a trade corridor across the Muslim world, independent of the West or global North, including the facilitation of travel, capital flows, and preferential investment agreements. I say “Muslim union” and not “Islamic union” deliberately, because unity and cohesion cannot feasibly be achieved across the Muslim world on the basis of any particular definition of what constitutes “Islamic”, but may be feasible on the basis of fundamental brotherhood.
Ukraine is the canary in the mine shaft, Europe is moving towards catastrophic decline, and our nations must prepare for a future in which we can create prosperity and political independence for our Ummah. This is why I am interested in what is happening in Ukraine.
👍7🤔2👌1
How or why it escapes the attention of many people that the United States has arguably not engaged in a serious military conflict in at least 30-40 years that was not undertaken for the purpose of destabilisation, I do not know. America does not engage in wars to win them anymore, they engage in wars for their own sake – to destroy, destabilise, and to profit; that is all.
Ukraine is not a vital national interest of the United States, not even remotely. Whatever function Ukraine has in the global economy, it would continue to fulfil whether independent, or annexed by Russia. The outcome of the war is irrelevant to America, all that is sought is the devastating consequences of the war; on Ukraine, on Russia, and on Europe. Asking “will Ukraine or Russia win?” is to miss the point entirely. The purpose is destabilisation, no more, no less.
Ukraine is not a vital national interest of the United States, not even remotely. Whatever function Ukraine has in the global economy, it would continue to fulfil whether independent, or annexed by Russia. The outcome of the war is irrelevant to America, all that is sought is the devastating consequences of the war; on Ukraine, on Russia, and on Europe. Asking “will Ukraine or Russia win?” is to miss the point entirely. The purpose is destabilisation, no more, no less.
👍6❤1🔥1