Fuck The Europeans!

European countries gave up their sovereignty after World War II. Germany first because it was defeated. Up until now, seventy-six years after the end of the war, the United States military is still present in its territory. The rest of the Europeans preferred il dolce far niente, or being somewhat lazy, and ignored their own defense, an essential requirement to have their own voice when the going gets tough.

In the current crisis in Ukraine, it has become clear who are the real players: The United States and Russia. Biden's recent call to Putin about Ukraine left them alone at the negotiating table for they are the ones who have more than something to say and who back their sayings with military force. The irruption of the United States through Biden that pushed Germany and Angela Merkel aside, repeated a nod the United States made seven years ago, when it pushed aside Germany, France and Poland, to intervene directly in the political crisis of Ukraine. America's rallying cry on that occasion was "Fuck the Europeans." Victoria Nuland, a senior US diplomatic official, exclaimed it when instructing her Ambassador to Ukraine in February 2014.

To understand the current chapter of the drama in Ukraine, it is necessary to return to 2014 to observe which are the international forces that acted in that country and their motivations, which today, in a somewhat kind of second act, again face the same characters on the same stage, (the protagonists for The United States and Russia have not changed) and for identical reasons.

Who rules in Ukraine?

Victoria Nuland, who today serves as the third in the hierarchy of Joe Biden's State Department, was head of the United States Diplomacy in Europe, in 2014, during the Obama Administration. In February of that year, an anonymous source made public the recording of a telephone conversation of hers with the United States Ambassador to Ukraine (Who recorded it? It’s a mystery. It was supposed to be Russian Intelligence). In the conversation, Nuland instructs the Ambassador to appoint Arseni Yatsenyuk, one of the leaders of the opposition to President Yanukovych, as the new head of the Government of Ukraine. As simple as that! Ukraine at that time had its political institutions riding a pretty rough go of things but there it was, with a President, a Ministry and a Congress in office. So, Mrs. Nuland made it clear in the telephone conversation that the United States was getting ready neither more nor less, than to carry out a coup d'état to appoint its candidate as head of the administration of Ukraine.

Victoria Nuland

Did the coup d’état exist?

Yes, it existed. Two weeks after the phone call, the President of Ukraine fled his country in terror and Yatsenyuk was left in charge of the new government as Prime Minister, as stated by Mrs. Nuland.

In the telephone conversation that was made public, Mrs. Nuland very diplomatic and politely exclaimed "Fuck the European Union." Soon enough she had a chance to put her "good wishes" into practice.

Ukraine's decision

How did Victoria Nuland do it? Ukraine in those days was struggling in a political crisis that exposed the artificial character of the country, the work of Soviet bureaucrats who believed they could combine water with oil.

The breakdowns in Ukrainian society reappeared as a result of very poor fiscal and monetary policies since its Independence in 1991, which forced the Government of President Yanukovych to seek financial support from both Russia and the European Union. Aware of the strategic value of his country (because of its proximity to Russia) and knowing that the financing would lead Ukraine to commit to one of the two "generous" lenders, Yanukovych started an auction in which Ukraine was offered to the highest bidder. The European Union, highly valuing Ukraine's access to a club as select as its own, made a nominal financial offer, as if to say that it complied with the auction rules: 500 million dollars, which of course did not solve the Ukrainian liquidity problems. Russia instead offered US $ 15 billion aiming at the immediate solution of Ukraine's financial needs. Obviously, the Russian club was far from having the attractiveness and brilliance of the European Union; however, the Yanukovych government, knowing that its cash problem was immediate, opted for the alternative offered by Russia. "The need has the face of a heretic.". So, the Government of Ukraine at the time of the big decisions, embraced Russia.

The Rebellion of Western Ukraine

But this immediately enhanced the population of Western Ukraine whose history with the rest of Ukraine was troubled to say the least. Since 1919 up to 1939, it was a part of Poland, having been for a very long-time part of the Austrian Empire in which its capital, Lvov, was the third most important city after Vienna and Prague. Western Ukraine was the only part of the Western world that Hitler's Germany granted to Stalin's USSR in 1939 in the Von Ribbentrop Molotov Pact.

In dark green the Western Ukraine that until 1939 lived on the fringes of Ukraine. Note the Russian territory that the Soviets transferred after the Civil War to Ukraine in 1922 (in pink) and later in 1954, the transfer of Crimea (in light purple). They explain today the importance of the Russian population in those territories.

In 1941, Western Ukraine welcomed Hitler's German troops with open arms at the time of the invasion of the USSR. For them it was the return to the West. However, this lasted only three and a half years. The defeat of Germany and its allies returned Western Ukraine to the hated Soviet Union. 

Western Ukraine appears covered by the shield and its eventual national colors.

The End of the Soviet Union

Upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Western Ukraine was integrated into the new Ukraine. The Ukrainians of the West were not happy after the decision of President Yanukovych with the idea that their country would become the satellite of Russia in 2014, the continuation of the hated USSR for them. At the same time, a good part of the public opinion of the Center of Ukraine, hypnotized by the West, preferred that year the European Union to Russia (Who could convince them that they did not have the resources to join a rich man's club?)

Maidan Square

And, as a result of such discontent, the Protest of the Maidan Square was born in 2013. The occupation of the square lasted for months and there, Mrs. Victoria Nuland appeared with the United States Ambassador to distribute cookies! to the protesters who did not move from the Plaza as long as Yanukovych did not change his decision.

Victoria Nuland's Generosity in Maidan Square

Mrs. Nuland surely thought that she had only made a humanitarian gesture by feeding the protesters. Shall it have occurred to her that her act was an impertinence, an open interference in the internal affairs of a foreign country? If she thought about it, she shouldn't have cared much because who, in its right mind, would dare to hold accountable a high official of the nation that calls itself as an "Exceptional Nation.”? It was to be expected that with a support as important as that of the United States that was present through Mrs. Nuland, the occupation of Maidan Square would continue as it actually did. In February 2014, Germany and France, alarmed by this political fire in the "backyard" of Western Europe, intervened and called the parties in dispute to a conciliation, for which on February 21, 2014, President Yanukovych signed with the leaders of the Opposition and the ministers of Foreign Affairs of France, Germany and Poland a program that would move the elections forward and allow the change of political authorities in a civilized way. Russia participated as an observer in this Agreement. And what about Mrs. Victoria Nuland? Didn't anybody remember the generous woman who handed out cookies in Maidan Square? No one invited her! To her, the representative of power in the Unipolar World, a power interested in "guiding" Ukraine to complete the siege that already surrounded Russia from Estonia to Turkey, the resurrection of the old siege that Hitler's Germany -another country that at its time also felt as an Exceptional Nation- built around the Soviet Union. Mrs. Nuland would soon be present to spoil the feast of European benefactors. She didn't need an invitation!

Belarus, Ukraine and the Black Sea separate NATO countries from Russia

Maidan Square in Kiev on February 21, 2020

Madame Nuland must have cared little for the Europeans' contempt for she was preparing her own Coup d'état. The agreement endorsed by France, Germany and Poland at the end of the Maidan Square protest, precipitated the events. For Madame Victoria the next day on February 22, it was her turn. Inexplicably that day President Yanukovych disappeared from the scene (he later appeared as a refugee in Russia), his Ministry was disbanded and the Armed and Security Forces took refuge in his barracks.

What underground maneuvers to change the regime caused the disbandment of the constitutional authorities of Ukraine?

On February 22, there were good and tragic arguments for the stampede by the authorities: in the days before the "24-hour Agreement", snipers indiscriminately killed protesters and police (more than 100 people were killed). Any threat that February 22 was credible because a mysterious party, the snipers, had been in charge of showing that the dialectic was written in blood.

Anyway, Mrs. Victoria Nuland achieved her goal: on February 26, 2014 Arseni Yatsenyuk became Prime Minister of Ukraine. Madame Victoria could then properly exclaim "Fuck the Europeans", "Fuck the European Union"!

Yatsenyuk and Obama

Epilogue

The coup in Ukraine promoted by the United States that enshrined Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister, had its tail blows. It was clear to Russia that the United States was putting down roots not only to its district, but also to the neighborhood. Too close for Russia was its adversary and peer in atomic weaponries, too close to its most important cities and having Ukraine's ports on the Black Sea with the consequent threat to the naval base under lease from Russia in Crimea, a region of Ukraine until 2014.

 What did Russia do? He got straight to the point in Crimea: it simply took over the entire Region militarily and, after a plebiscite, incorporated it into his territory. Ukraine was almost terminally ill and after the US-controlled coup, it sought to weaken it even more; for this it stimulated the uprising of part of the Donbass, a concentration area for a large part of the Russian population living in Ukraine. It was enough for Ukraine to remain until today in a State of War and therefore under circumstances that scare away potential foreign investors who could lift up Ukraine from the economic swamp in which it is debated.

On the United States' side, the coup in Ukraine made it clear to European countries that important negotiations and agreements, even if they deal with Europe's "backyard", go through Washington, even more so if they have the virtue of affecting Russia.

An indirect effect of Ukraine transformed into a conflictive region between Russia and the United States was to make visible the problems of the Russian populations that at the time of the division of the Soviet Union were left outside Russia: twenty million Russians who speak Russian who, in religious matters, are faithful to the Orthodox Church and culturally related to the Russian world. A problem similar to the one which arose with the German populations at the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and which was a very important cause of World War II. In 2001 Ukraine had at least eight million Russians living in its territory, almost 20% of the population of that country.

Russian is their native language. It is observed that in 40% of the Ukraine area the Russian language is very important. At least 25% of the population speaks it as their native language. (red and dark red colors)

The fact that the United States came to dictate Ukraine's policy is not minor. The proximity to Russia is evident and  Transforms Ukraine in the Main Security Problem for Russians. An area of ​​confrontation where Russia seeks to escape from the fence that the United States has laid around it, and it tries to carry out the Wolfowitz_Doctrine (or its later sweetened formulations for consumption by United States citizens who were impressed and rejected such an aggressive text. It is named after the United States Under Secretary of Defense in 1991):

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union, or elsewhere, that may pose a threat on the order of that formerly postured by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

After all of the above, is there any doubt that the current crisis in Ukraine has the United States and Russia as the main actors? Trump's four years were a relatively peaceful period for this country. With the return of the United States-led international affairs negotiating table and headed by the same team that ruled them in the Obama administration, the conflict has resumed the intensity of 2014-15; something not encouraging for world peace. The new Biden government appears to be "in search of lost time." It's the resurrection of Wolfowitz!

Estados Unidos y su Talón de Aquiles

Este Blog ha comenzado a traducir columnas al inglés. Ellas se encuentran en  Mas Mundo https://contacto.substack.com.  

El Talón de Aquiles de la fortaleza imperial de Estados Unidos son sus Fuerzas Armadas. Distinta es la visión de la opinión pública que las ve como un baluarte del país.  Un antecedente sin embargo invita a meditar: al fin de la Unión Soviética sus Fuerzas Armadas eran muy poderosas, tan poderosas que el Imperio que fue la URSS no las pudo pagar. 30 años más tarde parece ser el turno de Estados Unidos cuyas Fuerzas Armadas  para operar en el gran teatro del mundo que su Gobierno se  auto impuso, requieren recursos que sobrepasan la capacidad financiera y económica del Imperio en que se convirtió Estados Unidos. Éste ya no puede desentenderse del desequilibrio de sus cuentas públicas ni de la reducción urgente de la deuda pública. Ella alcanzó niveles críticos y muy graves para un país cuya moneda es hoy la más usada en las transacciones internacionales y como moneda de reserva por los Bancos Centrales del mundo.

Los conflictos militares que enfrentó  Estados Unidos después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial le hicieron difícil el camino imperial. La Guerra de Vietnam, la principal del período, fue una verdadera catástrofe: murieron más de 50.000 soldados de Estados Unidos durante los diez años de guerra, cosechando una derrota que lo obligó a una dramática retirada del territorio vietnamita. Consecuencias de la derrota: A veinte años del fin de la guerra las partes reanudaron relaciones diplomáticas y a poco andar Estados Unidos se convirtió en buen amigo de su verdugo. ¿Cuál fue la real necesidad del sacrificio de los jóvenes que murieron en Vietnam? ¿Por qué la guerra entonces? ¿Quién responde por la muerte de los jóvenes de Estados Unidos? ¿Quién responde por los 4.000.000 de muertos a causa de la guerra (Wikipedia)? 

El Fin de la Conscripción

Muchos jóvenes ciudadanos de Estados Unidos fueron víctimas fatales de las guerras iniciadas después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. En 1973 las autoridades eliminaron el Servicio Militar Obligatorio que obligaba a los jóvenes a incorporarse a las Fuerzas Armadas. En su reemplazó llegaron soldados profesionales, esos que por una remuneración aceptan enfrentar la muerte. Las Fuerzas Armadas de Estados Unidos desde ese momento se alimentaron de mercenarios.

Guerras sin Control

El fin del Servicio Militar fue un cambio nada de trivial: las guerras dejaron de tener costos personales para los ciudadanos o sus familias. Por eso se  convirtieron en una abstracción para la opinión pública en Estados Unidos. Permitió que el pueblo norteamericano superará el fuerte anti belicismo de los años Sesenta y mirara las guerras como algo lejano. De ahí en adelante ante cada  nueva guerra la ciudadanía en Estados Unidos miró para el lado y se desentendió de ella. En un asunto tan grave para cualquier país como lo es una guerra, la Presidencia de Estados Unidos quedó sujeta solo a un control eventual del Congreso. A partir del 2001 como se explica más bajo, ni el Congreso pudo intervenir.  

El  empleo de fuerzas armadas que se sustentan en el sacrificio de los ciudadanos no era un buen camino en la búsqueda del poder imperial o del mundo unipolar. Obligaba a que las guerras contaran con la aprobación de la opinión pública. Sin preocuparse de ella y apoyado en fuerzas militares mercenarias, Estados Unidos pudo hacer de su voz una voz dominante. El horror y el sufrimiento de las guerras que antaño afectaba también a los ciudadanos de Estados Unidos, fueron de cargo a partir de la llegada de los mercenarios, casi enteramente de los países en las que ellas se combatieron: Iraq, Libia, Siria, Yemen, Afganistán, Grenada, Panamá, Serbia, todos países débiles o muy débiles. Causaron cientos de miles de víctimas, pero víctimas muy lejanas para impresionar a la opinión pública de Estados Unidos.  

Como no es de la esencia humana aceptar de buenas a primeras órdenes de poderes ajenos, la fuerza militar es indispensable para quien quiera hacerse obedecer. Emplear fuerzas armadas mercenarias permite que las autoridades del candidato a dirigir el mundo unipolar actúen con mucha más libertad. Los primeros veinte años del siglo XXI así lo muestran. 

Es paradojal como el movimiento pacifista de los 60 al fin de cuentas permitió justamente lo contrario de lo que perseguía: Estados Unidos se transformó poco tiempo después de Vietnam en un país peligroso, un campeón de las guerras, algunas de las cuales se han eternizado: Siria, Iraq, Libia. Eliminar el servicio militar permitió que la sociedad en Estados Unidos  viviera una vida más tranquila a costa de dejar libres a sus autoridades para jugar el juego imperial. Estados Unidos ahora es el país belicista por excelencia. 

Por si alguien tiene dudas

Que Estados Unidos busca el poder imperial lo dejó al descubierto en 1991 la doctrina Wolfowitz (nombre en ese año del Subsecretario de Defensa de Estados Unidos), la nueva doctrina que emergió a la caída de la Unión Soviética:  "Nuestro primer objetivo es prevenir la emergencia de un nuevo rival, ya sea en el territorio de la ex Unión Soviética o en cualquier otro lugar". Fue la arrogancia de quien se creyó ganador de la Guerra Fría y se sintió todopoderoso, pero que no midió adonde lo llevaría su arrogancia.

En 1957 el futuro Presidente Kennedy entonces senador, advirtió  "... if we fail to meet the challenge of either Soviet or Western imperialism, then no amount of foreign aid, no aggrandizement of armaments, no new pacts or doctrines or high-level conferences can prevent further setbacks to our course and to our security.” (citado por Cynthia Chung)  ¿Habrá pensado Kennedy que 60 años más tarde sus ideas explicarían los problemas de su propio país  que  da tropezones y pierde el rumbo y la seguridad gracias al ánimo imperial que se apoderó de su Gobierno?

El Problema de ser Rico

Apartar primero  a la opinión pública  de las guerras y después al Congreso parece un sistema muy práctico para promocionar el Imperio. Pero una gran interrogante flota en el aire: ¿Cuánto tiempo Estados Unidos puede persistir en su afán de iniciar nuevas guerras para desarrollar y consolidar el Imperio?

Estados Unidos candidato a rey del mundo unipolar o Nación Excepcional como se autoproclama, es un país de altos estándares de vida y por eso las remuneraciones allí son altas. La educación, los servicios médicos o los servicios doméstico se han hecho casi prohibitivos. Nada de extraño entonces que sus Fuerzas Armadas obviamente muy intensivas en personal, hagan que el presupuesto de Defensa en Estados Unidos sea cada vez más difícil de solventar. Hoy el costo de las Fuerzas Armadas es un factor muy incidente en el déficit creciente del Presupuesto Federal y en los niveles asombrosos que alcanza la deuda pública. 

¿Cómo se podría financiar a Fuerzas Armadas que deben impedir la emergencia de rivales en todas partes del mundo? ¿Seguirá el presupuesto de Defensa el camino de la educación norteamericana que cada día es más cara y difícil de solventar? Basta pensar hoy en  los llamados "enemigos" (China, Rusia e Irán), para ponderar la carga que soportan las Fuerzas Armadas de Estados Unidos. Estos "enemigos" no son "pan comido" para la "Nación Excepcional" y sus aliados, más indigestos a no dudarlo, que los que Estados Unidos  se "ha servido" uno tras otro después de la desgraciada guerra de Vietnam. Países todos que una calificación generosa llamaría de segundo o tercer nivel.

             Base Naval de Norfolk en la Costa Este de los 

                                      Estados Unidos

Tecnología versus Personal Militar

Seguramente las Fuerzas Armadas de Estados Unidos intentan sustituir  a parte de su personal por tecnología para tratar de abaratar costos y hacerse más poderosas. Un nuevo camino que no es "coser y cantar" . A continuación tres razones que lo hacen difícil.

1)     El costo descontrolado de las nuevas tecnologías  . Un ejemplo es la nueva gran arma de la aviación de Estados Unidos, el F-35, famoso ya por el alto costo de su desarrollo. 

        Es muy probable que Estados Unidos deba repensar muy seriamente la conveniencia de continuar con la actual estructura de su industria de armamentos. Ella parece conducir al país a un callejón sin salida. El Presidente Eisenhower al retirarse en Enero de 1961 lo advirtió:

      “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex… The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.” (citado por Cynthia Chung)

2)    La imposibilidad de transferir todas las funciones del personal militar a la tecnología. Así sucede con las "boots on the ground", la irreemplazable vieja función del militar que combate en el terreno, una función que no admite sustitución a la hora de ejercer un descarnado dominio en territorio enemigo. (De acuerdo a Wikipedia "The term is used to convey the belief that military success can only be achieved through the direct physical presence of troops in a conflict area"). Con Fuerzas Armadas mercenarias el costo de "boots on the ground" se hace prohibitivo; es que los mercenarios se hacen pagar, algo muy distinto a los antiguos reclutas del Servicio Militar. Los nuevos "soldados" tienen toda la libertad del mundo para enrolarse y no ven bien en su futuro mucha exposición en el campo de batalla.

3)    La intervención de los intereses políticos en las decisiones de abastecimientos militares, especialmente cuando los montos involucrados no dejan a nadie impasible. Por eso las industrias privadas de las armas (Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed, etc) se encargan de distribuir la ejecución de los nuevos contrato entre un gran número de Estados para comprometer el apoyo de los políticos que representan a esos Estados. El resultado obviamente es el encarecimiento de los contratos pues las mayorías en el Congreso no se preocupan mayormente de los costos de los proyectos si ellos significan más trabajo en sus estados. En Washington el lobby de las armas es poderoso, una fuerza que interviene de modo decisivo en la aprobación del Presupuesto de Defensa.  

      PRESENCIA DE FUERZAS MILITARES DE ESTADOS                                                  UNIDOS

Desafíos imposibles

El futuro de la Defensa de Estados Unidos solo tiene una dirección: costos cada vez más altos. Ya están en un nivel que desequilibra la economía del país lo que es por supuesto una consecuencia de buscar el dominio universal con dos obstáculos difíciles de superar: China y Rusia (ver artículo sobre nuevas armas hipersónicas rusas anunciadas por el Presidente Putin en Marzo 2018). Cada uno de por sí formidable; que se dice los dos actuando de consuno como sucede hoy gracias a las acciones desatentadas de la burocracia de la política internacional de Estados Unidos. Ella consiguió arrojar a Rusia un país tradicional de Europa, en los brazos de China.

                       ¿Mar de China o Mar de Estados Unidos?

Lo único que excusa el error de los burócratas de Estados Unidos es la velocidad asombrosa e inesperada que alcanzó el desarrollo de China, hoy la principal potencia económica del mundo. ¡Cualquiera se podía engañar! Sin embargo en vez de rendirse a la evidencia de una China que retoma el sitial que le corresponde por el tamaño de su población y por la riqueza y antigüedad de su cultura, los burócratas del Imperio de la Nación Excepcional creen que le pueden meter palos a las ruedas de la bicicleta china: sanciones, juicios, denuncias, campañas de desprestigio, levantamientos de la quinta columna occidental al interior de China, etc. Muy tarde y muy poco. La bicicleta China ya es irrefrenable, más todavía con los recursos financieros gigantescos que la impulsan gracias a las altísimas tasas de ahorro de su austera población.

 

Las Tareas 

 

La presencia de las Fuerzas Armadas de Estados Unidos en el mundo es significativa como lo muestra este artículo del ABC de España que menciona 686 bases militares fuera de Estados Unidos según información oficial del 2015. Es posible que ellas sean más de 800 considerando las bases secretas. Según Wikipedia  

probablemente son más de 1000.  

Estados Unidos cuenta también con once escuadras navales encabezadas cada una por un portaviones, que proyectan el poder de Estados Unidos en todos los océanos del mundo. Verdaderas y poderosas bases flotantes.

                      Bases de Estados Unidos que rodean a Irán

La medida de la importancia que han alcanzado las Fuerzas Armadas de Estados Unidos lo da el tamaño del Presupuesto de Defensa de USA que fluctúa entre 4 y 5% del PGB. más del doble del presupuesto proporcional de un país normal en estas materias. Sin embargo la comparación con los presupuestos de otros países no es adecuada si no se consideran ciertos factores que encarecen el presupuesto de Estados Unidos como las remuneraciones del personal (un soldado en Estados Unidos tiene un costo muchísimo más alto que el costo de sus equivalentes en eventuales enemigos como Rusia, China e Irán), el costo de los "veteranos" (los soldados retirados que reciben una pensión del Gobierno); el costo del equipamientos  y el costo de los nuevos desarrollos técnicos. Un indicador ajustado del gasto en defensa  por algo parecido al  PPP (Power Purchase Parity) circunscrito a los factores del costo militar, entregaría resultados que sorprenderían sobre el gasto en defensa comparativo de cualquiera de esos tres países. El de China es muy probable que ya en la actualidad sea equivalente al de Estados Unidos; en el futuro será mucho mayor porque la economía China al menos duplicará o triplicará a la de Estados Unidos. ¡Qué desgracia para un Imperio que cojea por su incapacidad económica de sostenerse, que simultáneamente emerja el monstruo económico que es China! A pesar de las declaraciones de un Biden que promete frenar el impulso chino, la fuerza que trae China es más arrolladora que un Tsunami. ¡Buena suerte Mr. Biden! ¡Menudo enemigo eligió para desafiar!

 

Al comparar los poderes relativos también hay que tener presentes las tareas que se le asignan a las Fuerzas Armadas en cada país. Las de Estados Unidos tienen las tareas más vastas por cuanto deben "prevenir la emergencia de nuevos rivales en cualquier lugar del mundo"  (doctrina Wolfowitz). Una tarea autoimpuesta que solo se explica por una borrachera de entusiasmo de los políticos y planificadores del Pentágono en Estados Unidos al momento de la caída de la Unión Soviética. ¡"...en cualquier lugar del mundo"! ¿Habrán medido bien el alcance de esta frase quienes desarrollaron la doctrina militar de Estados Unidos? Da una idea muy clara de los descriterios y desequilibrios que imperan en Washington. Los mismos que han llevado al deterioro impresentable de las cuentas públicas de Estados Unidos. La vieja "Hubris" griega parece haberse adueñado de Estados Unidos, el territorio donde hoy impera la mentalidad de un "Nuevo Rico": todo lo puede, todo lo quiere. ¿A qué costo?

Epílogo

Chipe libre y Guerras Eternas: el fin de la cueca

Después de la Guerra de Vietnam las personas, las familias y la opinión pública quedaron en Estados Unidos en un rol secundario respecto a las guerras que emprendieron sus autoridades para lograr la jefatura del mundo unipolar. A la caída de la Unión Soviética el camino estaba despejado para emplear las guerras como instrumento activo de la política, . Y quedó consagrado el 2001 inmediatamente después de la caída de las Torres Gemelas, con el Patriot Act, una ley aprobada por el Congreso que dio poderes omnímodos a la Presidencia para iniciar acciones bélicas. Ella subsiste hasta hoy con algunas modificaciones. Basta que el Presidente de Estados Unidos declare que un país protege o incentiva el Terrorismo para que caiga la ira divina sobre los infelices habitantes de ese país. Las guerras se han sucedido sin intermitencias a partir del 2001: Afganistán, Iraq, Primavera Árabe, Siria, Libia, Yemen... Acciones justicieras del Presidente de Estados Unidos. ¡Everywhere! Películas "en vivo" como el supuesto asesinato de Bin Laden en Pakistan presenciado por Barak Obama y su séquito. Drones y misiles como armas mortíferas asesinando generales y científicos en Irán. Víctimas como Sadam Hussein en Irak y otros más con nombres de pronunciación imposible.  Asesinatos al estilo del Far West según Hollywood: el sheriff del mundo ejecuta a los malhechores  siguiendo las instrucciones que él mismo se da. Pero la modernidad le permite hacerlo a mansalva, sentado tranquilamente en un sillón de la elegante Sala Oval de la Casa Blanca.

Nada detiene hoy a las guerras. La Casa Blanca ha tomado en serio a Von Clausewitz: la guerra como continuación de la política... por otros medios. ¿Por otros medios? Sí, los medios militares. Pero exigen dinero disponible en la cuenta. ¿Y si no lo hay? ¿Y si los acreedores no quieren prestar? ¿Se acabarán la guerras? ¿Se terminará el Mundo Unipolar? ¿Se terminarán los asesinatos selectivos? ¿Llegará a su fin la película hollywodense que muestra la justicia del Far West?

Tanto va el cántaro al agua... 

El abuso de las guerras ha puesto a Estados Unidos en una situación financiera muy compleja con una deuda pública insoportable que se explica íntegramente por el exceso del gasto en defensa después de la Guerra de Vietnam ¿Adónde irán los futuros recursos públicos, si es que ellos aparecen? ¿A pagar intereses? ¿A las amortizaciones de la deuda? ¿A solucionar problemas de los ciudadanos? ¿Quedará algo para las guerras?

¡El fantasma de la caída de la Unión Soviética ronda el Capitolio y la Casa Blanca en Washington!

History Repeats Itself

Industrial Revolution vs. Globalization and the Ongoing Digital Transformation of Today.

The current problems endured by the United States, which may seem incomprehensible today, Europe withstood them more than 100 years ago. The technical progress that the industrial revolution brought –invented and financed by Europeans– had as a consequence, a serious social crisis that could well have been the cause of the European upheavals of the 20th century. A progress that encouraged the United States to turn it into what they call the “Exceptional Nation”, took Europe to a second-tier role in current international affairs. It is not surprising then, that the Digital Transformation of our days, created and encouraged by the United States, may end up dethroning this country giving way to Asian leadership.

 

"Not all that glitters is gold"

 

Northern Italy shows that Europe's past, before the world wars, had fierce moles. In the Center of Milan, one can see a landmark of the city since 1866, the Cimitero Monumentale di Milano, a surprising demonstration of the wealth of the Milanese at the end of the 19th century. This Cemetery, rich in palatial mausoleums, sought to immortalize the greatness of the families of the Milanese elite. On the other hand, in Genoa the visitor finds the Emigration Museum.  It portrays the tragedy faced by the "Deplorable" Italians who emigrated massively, at the time when the rich were buried in the Monumental Cemetery of Milan. "The happy and powerful do not go into exile" according to a phrase attributed to Tocqueville. The "deplorables" go into exile.

Today the descendants of Italians residing outside Italy (at least between 60 and 80 million) add up to the number of inhabitants of Italy. The number of emigrants was very relevant to Italian society at the time. 16 million emigrants between 1861 and 1914 for an average population in the period of 29 million. 

 

What could explain this stark contrast between the Milanese Cemetery and the massive emigration of Italians? Is there any kinship with the situation that society in the United States lives today, a society that was one of equals and that today is blurred with the rise of the “Deplorables” whose life markedly contrasts with the business, political and intellectual elites that populate both coasts of the United States? 

 

The wealth of the Milanese and the poverty of the Italian emigrants were consequences of the modernization of the world economy of the time due to the Industrial Revolution, invented by Europeans and financed by Europeans, which introduced railways, steamships, the telegraph and industrial machines, four developments that radically changed the lives of Europeans. Due to these advances, the United States, Canada, Australia, Argentina and new areas for agriculture in Russia were enabled as modern farming centers. Consequence of the above: the crisis of traditional European agriculture –including in it the traditional regions of European Russia– that did not have the necessary conditions to compete with the new production areas, and concurrently with the crisis, impoverishment and misery for millions of European peasants who were starving in their small towns and small estates, and who were forced to emigrate. Thus, the remarkable European technological development during the 19th century had very serious effects (worsened also due to the increase in population) on a large part of the European population that had to be uprooted, abandoning what was their traditional space, to go on to take their chances in a new and unknown world.

 

 

 

European Emigration

The great emigration was not an Italian peculiarity. It was a collective phenomenon of European countries.

Greater than the Italian was the German emigration. In the United States today, 14% of the population is of German origin, the largest ethnic origin in the United States: 44 million of its inhabitants are of German descent! A plausible reason for the United States to be the country of hamburgers and hot dogs!

 

But there was also a great Scandinavian, Greek, Spanish, Irish, English, Polish, Jewish, Austrian, Russian emigration. They brought with them their great and perhaps only heritage: the ancient European culture. It was a phenomenon that collectively affected Europe with the exception of France, which shows quite lower emigration rates, perhaps because its population grew much less than it did in the rest of Europe and for sure, because France protected the rural world not for economic reasons but for social reasons.

 

Thus, European tragedies do not begin with the two World Wars of the 20th century or with the Communist Revolution in the Soviet Union. Shortly before, Europe suffered the emigration of a substantial part of its populations, a terribly painful situation that could predict great calamities. Wars, revolutions?

 

And the rich Europeans?

The Industrial Revolution brought an important development of Finance, necessary for the new investments that not only Europe, but the World as a whole required, and obviously a development of the industry based on new technologies. Industries and Finance, two activities that require the concentration of the population in cities, so that along with immigration came urbanization, a movement of population to large cities. That explains the wealth of cities like Milan, with families that earned considerable income from investments in the new centers of the world where agriculture started to develop; and also from the incipient industries that went hand in hand with new mining operations, from finance and from real estate activities of the growing cities. Hence the apparent paradox: extremely wealthy people in the cities, as evidenced by the Cimitero Monumentale in Milan; and very poor people, in misery, who had to look for a place that would allow them to survive, the one that is shown today in its exhibition at the Museum of Emigration in Genoa. In current terms of the United States, the elite, the very wealthiest of the cities, and the “Deplorables”, the people who have seen the companies in which they worked succumb and who have, in many cases,  been forced to accept employment in service activities acceptable to survive, but not at the status of their former jobs. 

 

Industrial Revolution 19th century 

Today it seems that life has taken on a satanic rhythm, but it must have been very similar to the one experienced by the generations that saw the normal course of their lives interrupted to immerse themselves in the frantic rhythm brought by the Industrial Revolution of the XIX Century that, in a short time, radically changed the life of Europeans. As an example the growth of the railways in two countries is shown below.

 

Russian Railways Development. In miles. (Wikipedia)

 

1855	570
1880	14,208
1890	19,011
1905	31,623
1917	50,403

 

 

Railroad Development in the United States. In miles

 

 

Rail Mileage Increase by State Groups 9
Region	1850	1860	1870	1880	1890
New England		3.660	4.494	5.982	6.831
Midwest States		6.705	10.964	15.872	21.536
Southern states		8.838	11.192	14.778	29.209
Western States		11.400	24.587	52.589	62.394
Pacific States		23	1.677	4.080	9.804
Totals		30.626	52.914	93.301	129.774

 

 

As Europe adapted to the changes imposed on it by the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, new countries emerged and the world's horizon widened. It is the moment in which the growth of the United States explodes hand in hand with the tens of millions of European emigrants who came to carve out their future as immigrants, but who carried with them the richness of European culture. The increase in the population of the United States shows it: in a century, between 1800 and 1900, the population multiplied 15 times, from 5 million to 76 million! In Europe in the same period of time, the population only doubled: from 203 million it went to 408 million. But the matter did not end there: between the years 1900 and 1920 the population of the United States increased almost 50% more, growing from 76 million to 106 million. Without the European emigration of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United States would not have reached anywhere near the importance it has today.

The development of agriculture in the United States is reflected in the following information.

 

United States Agricultural Exports 1860-1920s  (Wikipedia)

 

1860-1869 $ 182 million / year or 75% of total exports

1870-1879 $ 453 million / year or 79% of total exports.

1880-1889 $ 574 million / year or 76% of total exports.

1890-1899 $ 703 million / year or 71% of total exports.

1900-1909 $ 917 million / year or 58% of total exports.

 

(The United States had almost no inflation  in the period. The economists classify it as a deflationary period. The base price index 100 in 1860, reached 110 in 1910).

 

The brutal increase in agricultural exports from the United States had a natural market: Europe. Like Australian, Canadian, Argentine and Russian agricultural exports. An avalanche enough to crush European rurality. In 19th century Europe the rural economy gave way to the industrial and urban economy.

Europe showed in the 19th century that modern technological progress advances at a speed that is impossible for human societies to follow. How could Europe have solved the agricultural crisis and the destruction of rurality? What timely solution could the European countries have found to stop the departure of the masses of emigrants?

The Industrial Revolution was a blow that Europe delivered to itself. For the United States to take over from Europe and become the leader of the West was inevitable. Millions of Europeans with thousands of years of culture to their credit met there, in a very rich territory, with European capitals in search of a worthy destination, and of course, with new technologies developed by Europeans. 

Thus, the Industrial Revolution in Europe was the Founding Mother for the United States.