March 28, 1854, 160 years ago: Britain and France declare war on Russia, initiating the most intensive phase of the Crimean War. Plus ca change, eh?
But in fact things have changed. In spite of all the hot air emanating from ‘Europe’, that mythical place, and the White House, that all-too-real one, I would bet the farm that there will be no new Crimean War. In fact even if Putin gives the Ukraine a well-deserved spanky, hot air, I bet, will continue to be the most lethal weapon deployed by ‘The West’ — the not-so-wild West, these days, thank God.
Talking to my well-informed, well-intentioned Upper West Side friends, though, I’m amazed at how effective the anti-Russian propaganda campaign has been. “Their economy depends on exporting gas!” one friend of mine trumpeted(*). “That’s not sustainable!”
(Of course, leaving aside the fact that with tar sands and so on, the US also seems poised to become a net exporter of carbon-based fuel, one might also ask whether being a net importer of fossil carbon — like, oh, Japan, or ‘Europe’ — is sustainable either. Surely the one implies the other?)
This, depressingly, is the part that hasn’t changed. The image of ogreish, backward Russia helped schnooker the Socialists of Germany into supporting war in 1914 — not quite 100 years ago, but just a few months away. (Mark your calendars: August 4. Let’s have a commemorative picnic on the Old Mole’s one-time tumulus.) It seems to be working equally well with nice thoughtful Upper West Side liberals today.
——-
(*) To paraphrase Dr Johnson: I hate to speak ill of anyone, but I do believe the gentleman had been reading Thomas Friedman. A plea of temporary insanity will therefore be entertained by the Court.
Unsustainable. Unlike financial rackets, insurance rackets and flipping real estate, which are the bedrock civilization has been built upon. I see Putin took the adult route and didn’t sanction NASA, but he should hike the transport fees for our astronauts. (Can they still be considered astronauts if they don’t have their own spaceship?)
That quote about not being sustainable is absolutely incredible! There seems to two things that will bring you in for immediate disrepute from the ‘educated’ crowd: any disagreement on gay marriage and using too much fucking gas. First the Olympics now this? Man Russia, are you just trying to start an internet flame war with Gawker commenters or what?
I just love how self-righteous and short sighted these people are. The idea of gay marriage or climate change have become a part of the mainstream in this country only really over the last couple years after decades of people behind both issues on the outside looking in. Now they expect everyone in the whole fucking world to have their light bulbs to turn at the exact moment their’s does, and it they don’t well they’re fucking retrograde bigots who deserve whatever comes to them.
That quote about not being sustainable is absolutely incredible! There seems to two things that will bring you in for immediate disrepute from the ‘educated’ crowd: any disagreement on gay marriage and using too much fucking gas. First the Olympics now this? Man Russia, are you just trying to start an internet flame war with Gawker commenters or what?
I just love how self-righteous and short sighted these people are. The idea of gay marriage and climate change have become a part of the mainstream in this country only really over the last couple years, only after decades of people behind both issues on the outside looking in banging on the door. Now they expect everyone in the whole fucking world to have their light bulbs turn on at the exact same moment their’s does, and if they don’t, well they’re fucking retrograde bigots who deserve whatever comes to them.
Sorry for the doubling up, but upon rereading the first version, it was in obvious need of some editing and I can’t seem to find a delete function anywhere.
Nero fiddled (supposedly), but we’re stuck with Lib/Pwogs and Conservatives arguing minutia.
I believe that point about being a net exporter pertains only to finished fuels, not the overall flow of fossil energy. Thanks to cars-first transportation, we will always (until either Carmageddon or rebellion arrives) be a massive net importer of such substances.
Between the loss-leader “EV” phenomenon (which paves the way for continued pickup and SUV sales) and and the sponsored “energy boom” and “alternative fuels” PR tricks of Exxon and BP, no society comes anywhere close to ours in being propagandized about such crucial things.
In any event, an American using sustainability as a political club is about as Orwellian as it can get.
Re: something being sustainable or not: “In the long run, we’re all dead.”
I have wondered for a long time why from U.S. “leaders'” perspective USA & Russia appear to be (or are ginned up to be) always at daggers drawn. No “political scientist” has explained this to me. The only explanation I venture is that the oligarchs/plutocrats perceive antagonism to be in their interest. So I appeal to you smart folk, Dear Abby wise, to give me your considered take on this odd phenomenon (MJS’s “plunder” theory? Any details in this case? It is maddening.) Anxiously waiting, dear comrades.
It’s not nice to fuck with the hegemon
(Cue the thunder and bolts)
MythnTropes, think the way the oligarchs/plutocrats think: the world is a cold, dark place, where those of fittest predisposition are destined to battle each other to grow stronger. They believe that the universe has developed as a direct result of genocide; that the world is a cruel asylum warden pitting us against each other, and that if they don’t do their part by ennobling men with war, humans will go soft and be replaced by someone who can handle the job.
Even without that (if you’re still inclined to believe elite science and Market Style Evolution), take your requested “political science” perspective. For hundreds of years prior to 1914, hereditary elites had been proudly and openly developing “colonies,” using restrictive, consequence-free trade guilds (nascent corporations) and armies to control resources. What we call “World War I” happened because, as technology allowed elites to conceive of actually dominating the entire globe, they did it–as naturally as mud sliding down a hill. The excuses were incidental.
It’s easier to think about using the future as a metaphor. Imagine that a few nations simultaneously develop cheap space travel. How long before Moon War I? And after MW1, when the most prominent historians declare with one voice that MW1 was caused by “a multitude of factors, both social, personal, and economic,” will they be any more correct than they are now about WW1? No; the cause will be the same, namely, evil. As long as it’s there, any given technology only causes more of the same. Obama would be murdering babies inside Saturn’s rings, if he had cheap enough rockets and if there were babies living on Saturn’s rings. Presuming Obama became aware of (1) Saturn-babies, and (2) cheap interplanetary drones, he would kill them–the fact that he’s not currently doing so is not a result of any other factor than that he is not possessed of such weapons and/or information.
This one’s sorry for taking such a seemingly melodramatic turn in response to a question about the Great Chemical War, but it is indeed “maddening,” in most of the classrooms of the world, how pretentiously and wrongly delivered the “reasons” are. So long as you believe in Market Style Evolution, Wilson and Obama are right–war is absolutely necessary and moral, improves the nation, and will continue until morale improves.
Amen, brother.
I had the impression it was Amen, sister. I could be wrong.
Thanks to all 3 who weighed in. You are all smart & excellent writers. The more the better. All are invited.
Maybe the “evil” is reducible to plain and simple old greed. That too must have an origin…
The oligarchs/plutocrats are first in line, then they use second-line politicians (like USA President) with their own species of greed. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum?
Because of recent Crimea news, I wondered anew specifically anent USA-Russia, but agree that this maddening phenomenon is a specific case of an underlying predisposition. I also think that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, were not good men. So ages ago I plumped for anarchy. Is that left? Are Libertarians right? Anarchism and Libertarianism, where the circle closes: you can get to the same place traveling in opposite directions.
And speaking of the greedy ones, gee whiz, 5 JUSTICES decided we need even more votes up for sale.
And speaking of Russia & USA (land of opportunity & do not doubt it.. how many American lefties had to flee a communist dictatorship oh you do not know how good you have got it)), Russia a profound culture and USA a superficial one — infec(s)ting the rest of the world… with a predisposition to be infes(c)ted… and speaking of health insurance in USA (unlike the civilized workd), ad vomitorium ™ 谢谢
About MWI: I forgot to tell you,
I was the last poet of the Moon, I sang her loveliness
In the jasmine laden night ere her valleys bristled in arms
Thanks. Still, can someone direct me to a more discursive analysis?
Sincerely,
Puzzled in Pittsburg
Old Lenin thought that WWI was all about inter-imperialist rivalry. I suppose he’s the guy who first planted the thought in my head. He wasn’t around to comment on the next act, of course, much less the post-Soviet return to the late nineteenth-century status quo ante. There might be a better way of analyzing these events, but if so, I haven’t heard it.
I usually find myself flipping the question on its head: Can you imagine an empire ceasing to try to expand, accumulate, conquer, enrich itself? Can you imagine it voluntarily stopping? How would it have become an empire in the first place? I cannot stop itself — it can only be stopped.
Just as an aside, I understand the usefulness of metonymy, and think in some sense institutions seem animated (unstoppable golem-wise), and tails do wag dogs; but finally I think one needs to think (if one wants to think) of the people who populate or direct the institution, like an “empire,” for example. To me, this point of view embraces also nominalized adjectives, like “evil.” Thanks for reading. (“…wants to think”; I mean we all have known lots of folk who literally do not want to think)