Is the US Destined to Repeat Britain’s Imperial Folly?
More on the piece that Facebook blocked (1).
As any of you who have actually read the piece can attest, the article first lays out a series of facts, and then extrapolates from those facts. That is my usual method.
The facts I laid out are all primary, from reputable sources: the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Marine Corps Gazette, Pew Research Trust. Not only do I cite my sources, I provide links to the articles, so that anyone may verify any factual claims firsthand. I dislike putting my readers on an ‘I guess I’m just going to have to trust him’ basis.
As far as interpretation is concerned, that is free speech and even there, I try to hew to a facts-based narrative.
Nevertheless, Facebook seems to have no interest in reversing its ban on me publishing that post.
Now I ask you, Dear Reader: what are they frightened of? Are they worried that drawing too much attention to the editorial positions of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and yes, the US military, might undermine public support for this war?
Because there is no denying that there is a lot of anxiety within sections of the Democratic Party — the Corporate Democratic Party — about this war. Two New York Times editorials from May 11th and May 19th lay out the reasons for the concern. On May 19, the NYT Editorial Board warned:
“…the White House not only risks losing Americans’ interest in supporting Ukrainians… but also jeopardizes long-term peace and security on the European continent.” (2)
PBS recently had this to say regarding the situation in Europe:
““Regardless of the exact scenario, the coming winter is certain to be the most challenging Europe has seen in decades — and consumers or governments are expected to pay the price,” said Carlos Torres-Diaz, head of power at Rystad Energy.” (3)
So yes, the danger of a widespread destabilization of Europe is real. But ultimately, that is a political choice, which it is the right of governments and electors to make. The question is, is it the sane choice?
Great Britain, in the years 1870–1910, had a chance to negotiate a modus vivendi with Bismark’s Germany, whose fast-paced industrialization had, by the end of that period, outstripped Britain in steel and coal production and in overall exports (4). Instead, Britain chose to defend its world hegemony, a decision which ultimately led to World War I. Further, the post-war determination to ‘break’ Germany forever was a significant factor to the rise of Hitlerism in the 1930s. And in the end, as we all know, Germany became a world economic power anyway, while Britain’s position has diminished.
We have tried confrontation with Russia, moving NATO’s borders eastward, absorbing countries that Reagan solemnly promised Gorbachev would never be absorbed. Steve Forbes (yes, that Steve Forbes) recently acknowledged that:
“…special mention must be made of the terrible mistakes the U.S. and the West made in the 1990s. The economic advice pushed on Moscow by Washington and the IMF was disastrous, such as inflation-inflaming devaluations and “more vigorously” collecting exorbitant taxes in an already impoverished nation. Making things truly intolerable, there were several different tax regimes within the country; it would be like the U.S. having four different IRSs picking our pockets. Those terrible times set the stage for the rise of Putin.” (5)
This was, of course, the same IMF that tore apart Yugoslavia and impoverished Ukraine. As Kenneth Rapoza wrote from the pages of Forbes in 2014:
“”We saw this in the 90s and what the IMF did to Russia with Yeltsin. They’ll do that to Ukraine,” said [Vladimir] Signorelli [president of boutique investment research firm Bretton Woods Research LLC in New Jersey]. “Remember Slobodan Milošević in Yugoslavia? After the IMF finished with Yugoslavia it was only a matter of time before the separatist movements gained traction,” he said. “I think things in Ukraine can get really really bad.” ” (6)
Prophetic words, to be sure. And now, it seems, “our” objective is to eliminate Russia, ‘whatever it takes’.
The voices saying that “NATO will crush them [the Russians] in a leisurely two weeks” are all over the internet. And maybe, in a conventional war, that might be possible, provided China did not also get involved. But I can’t help thinking, Friends, that North Korea has nuclear weapons for a reason. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood, they are the ‘little guy’s’ ‘equalizers’.
Sorry, Joe B., Mark Z.. There’s got to be a better way.
— — — — — — — — —
My work is reader-supported. Putting together an analysis with data and detail takes time and effort and a willingness to challenge one’s own ideas about things. Data, after all, does not always lead us where we’d personally like to go. So if you appreciate what I’ve written, support me with a contribution via my PayPal. If you’re already on Medium, subscribe. I strive to get one to two essays up a week, depending on complexity.
— — — — — — — — —
(1) https://myke-simonian.medium.com/brigadier-general-retd-mark-kimmel-s-zelenskij-options-4e1ed0942fa3
(2) www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/opinion/america-ukraine-war-support.html
(3) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/europe-is-facing-an-energy-crisis-as-russia-cuts-gas-heres-why
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Germany#Early_20th_century
****
…I have a favor to ask. If you like what I write, please subscribe. I try to put up at least two essays a week, depending on how much research the subject matter requires. And remember, responses are welcome. None of us lives in a vacuum, in the written world any more than in the ‘real’ world. Thanks.