A Mediterranean Battlefield - Syria

[Cliff Varnell]

Terrific discussion, David. Highly enjoyable. The occasional snark aside, I have great respect for you, Paul and Magda.

Back to red

Yes, the Soviet's allowed the reunification of the two Germany's.

More like the Soviets negotiated the terms of their surrender in East Germany.

What other choice did they have?

Invade Poland, East Germany, Slovakia and the Czech Republic?

What leverage did Gorbachev enjoy while the Eastern Bloc was disintegrating?

Cliff, go ahead and read the history which is available with some diligent Googling. Fundamentally, this agreement revolved around the Four Powers Agreement in Germany.

However, according to that article: "No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany's western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO's expansion."

Yes, according to that article (there are a number of others out there that will take some tracking down - I didn't have the time to do that), but there were records kept of the meeting and Americans present other than Baker who have gone on the record to confirm that this agreement was reached. And then trashed by president Bush upon Baker's return. Thereafter Baker and Genscher pretended no agreement had been reached and lied their heads off.

Gorbachev was negotiating from a position of weakness and Bush & Co. stabbed him in the back.

You don't go cap in hand to Moscow to plead with the Soviet leader if he has no cards to play. He remained a signatory to the Four Powers Agreement and back in 1990 the US still cared a little about such things.

First of all, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact was a fait accompli

No, actually it wasn't.

James Baker never agreed to dissolve NATO - just promised not to move East.

Agreed. But the alliance had lost its meaning with the end of the Warsaw Pact --- but it was re-tasked to be the military alliance of the new global empire that began forming around the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
On China you may wish to read about the Pivot to Asia (HERE), although there has been a great deal written about it elsewhere - but I'm just too lazy to search for all the links. Pepe Escobar's articles are probably as good a starting point as any.

Here's the takeaway from the October 2013 article you linked above: "The US has already lost the ability to dictate to the rest of the world on international economic issues, even though it still wields considerable clout because of the size of its economy, and military prowess."

I think it's a terrific development that the US of A has lost the ability to dictate to the rest of the world on economic issues.

I don't think pushing other countries around is in our best long-term interest.

I agree with your sentiments with the caveat "losing" not lost. The danger lies with those neocons who don't see the writing on the wall -- or rather do see it and will do anything to stop it.

Coffee and roses, David.

Stock markets at all-time highs, low gas prices, lay-offs at 43 year lows.

More "de-dollarization" please!

I'm with you. A multipolar world is far more healthy for all of us, rather than one nation with a tiny elite that sees itself as the galactic emperor dominating everyone else with the death star.



***

Meanwhile, you keep missing the central thrust of the argument here. The problem is the rise of another reserve currency
that will lead to the collapse of the dollar as a viable and singular hegemon.


Pure speculation unsupported by the economic facts on the ground here in the States.

The economy of the US of A does not depend on dollar hegemony.

Can you point to a single deletrious economic impact this "de-dollarization" has caused?[/quote]

How does a nation fund a $223 trillion debt without all the benefits provided by reserve currency status?

Remove that backing, and the rest of the world that now has little option but to buy US dollar obligations (Treasuries) with the dollars they get from trading with the US and the whole game changes. Imagine just a tenth or a quarter of foreign trading nations accepting dollars in payment of trade and no longer investing those via their central banks into the Treasury market. The Treasury can only roll over debt for so long ( quantitive easing) and not forever. One day the chickens will come home to roost.

However, it is not my intention to conflate two different issues here. The US obviously can and will survive and prosper because it has huge natural reserves. The point I am making, however, is that dollar hegemony that has been its (inflated) strength for many decades past will become a thing of the past. For me (and you I think) this would be a very good thing.

This doesn't mean the US will cease to exist - but it will mean that it will lead to it losing it's ability to project its
power anywhere near as widely as now.

Isn't that a wonderful thing? Rather than the US of A dictating to the rest of the world, we could have an "all principals" approach to problems
which are resolved thru diplomacy and not American fiat.

As an American I'd be proud to see my country behave like a civil actor on the world stage...sigh...

It would be a win win for everyone, I think ---- other than the tiny elite who still adhere to inflated ambitions of power.

And that, in turn, will have continuing and deleterious impact on the US economy with a $200 trillion + accumulated debt
(yes, $200 t not $20t - see HERE - one of many similar articles).

This is real interesting!

I glanced at the first paragraph, saw the name -- Laurence Kotlikoff -- and sized him up instantly as a gold bug.

I googled "Laurence Kotlikoff gold" and sure enough -- dude's into gold.

I believe what gold bugs say about the US ecomony as much as I believe what born-again Christians say about Jesus.

He's not the only one saying this (again it's a case of being too lazy to Google extensively for relevant links as I've done this before elsewhere several times already).

Gold will never be able to replace digital money, although it is more than likely is going to increase in price considerably once the price fixing by the US financial community collapses and the old supply-demand equation kicks back in. Russia and China have been buying it by the tonne these past years.

On nuclear war: no one is speaking of starting a nuclear war, but of a nuclear war starting.... out of a conflict that
grows out of control if & when there is direct conflict between Russia and the US in Syria (and or the Ukraine).

Your belief that humans always make rational decisions in highly tense situations is charming and heart-warming - and I
want it to be true.


I reject the premise.

What highly tense situation?

Once Obama and Putin removed weapons of mass destruction from the Mideast (except Israel, of course), the world faced an entirely new paradigm in regards to energy resources.

The US has 50/60 nuclear weapons stored at Incirlik air base in Turkey as we speak. However, there is no need to have nukes located geographically --- cruise missiles have extensive ranges and nukes stored in Europe could easily hit targets in the muddle east.
The "highly tense situation" would be the one that developed should the neocon policy to directly confront Russia militarily in Syria (as I previously detailed) as as set out in all sorts of foreign policy documents where Russia (and now China) are viewed as nations to be confronted.

But it fails from a lack of psychological reality. I do not regard the elites as psychologically able to subdue their own shadows any more than anyone else.

Let contemporary history be the guide on this.

Don't see the sky falling, myself.

I see problems that can be resolved thru diplomacy.

I certainly hope so. And in that we are as one. Problems can be resolved through diplomacy. Where there's a will...

Hoping and wishing doesn't change the black hearts of those who currently run Washington. There is a real and urgent need to have common sense returned to the equation.