Naked Capitalism
The Economics of the Ukraine Proxy War with Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai
Danny Haiphong at the Left Lens channel interviews Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai
Monday, February 6, 2023
The Economics of the Ukraine Proxy War with Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai — Danny Haiphong interviews Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai
Video and transcript. The video is from 4 days ago. The transcript takes a couple of days to prepare.
Naked Capitalism
The Economics of the Ukraine Proxy War with Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai
Naked Capitalism
The Economics of the Ukraine Proxy War with Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Michael Hudson says the purpose of Europe’s boycott of cheap Russian energy is to increase Europe’s dependence on the USA for energy. Washington hopes that this will buy the Neoliberal Empire more time before collapses. The West knew it could not stop a Russia-China-Iran-India axis from developing. Therefore the West is engaged in what Hudson calls a “holding operation” -- i.e. holding on to Europe.
Susan Webber disagrees, saying the purpose of the boycott is to “break Russia.”
I say that Webber (aka “Yves Smith”) should stop drinking the Western media kool-aid.
Hudson says the Ukraine situation is just one front in a global struggle between [1] the forces of neoliberal rentier financialization, led by Washington, and [2] the rest of the world, which operates by regular industrial capitalism, plus certain elements of socialism.
Financialized Western monopolies are parasites that seek rentier income -- i.e. rent and interest. Meanwhile the rest of the world prefers to seek profits from actual production.
Europe’s hunger strike against Russia has made Europe dependent on hideously expensive U.S. energy (the USA is the world’s biggest exporter of natural gas) and on U.S. weapons makers.
More importantly, Washington seeks to “put such an economic squeeze on debtor countries — on Latin America, Africa, and South Asia — that they are forced into higher reliance on the dollar.” (Hudson).
Hudson: “Threats to ‘break up Russia’ are simply political talk to sell the project to the U.S. public. They’re looking at what they can absolutely hold on to, and they’re trying to hold on to the world outside of Russia, not to defeat Russia itself. It’s a fight over how America can control and essentially dominate its allies, not its non-allies. The United States has solidified its economic stranglehold on Europe.”
Exactly. The real target of the war is Europe. Susan Webber (of Naked Capitalism) does not understand this. She thinks the Empire is trying to destroy Russia.
1. Operation Tremendous Opportunity was successfully concluded months ago, with the destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline.
2. Ukraine is of less strategic importance than Afghanistan.
3. The empire's news cycle has begun its 'pivot' to China.
Yet we still have pundits who believe that a defeat in Ukraine will be taken as a personal defeat by the managers of empire.
How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline - Seymour Hersh
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream
@ Konrad
I think that Susan Webber has this right, for the simple reason that that it is long time policy beginning with the Europeans centuries ago and pursued in particular by the British after Napoleon's failure. The US inherited this as a legacy of the British Empire which it assumed post WWII. US and British military strategy focused on this since Halford Mackinder's "The Geographical Pivot of History" published in 1905. Brzezinski articulated this in his works, in particular The Grand Chessboard. It was institutionalized in the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Moreover the European elite is now voicing it publicly.
For Western domination to continue to permanent global domination through neoliberalism, which involves neo-imperialism and neocolonialism, Russia and China must be turned into either vassals or colonies. They could be turned into vassals through regime change, and lacking that, into colonies by conquest.
So Michael Hudson is partially correct in my view but lacks the big picture of what is really going down geopolitically and how insane the Western leadership/ownership class actually is. As I see it, they are willing to take this all the way to nuclear war, which they think that can win and after which they will own what's left when they emerge from their bunkers.
@peter pan
The guy in this video says a lot of crazy things at times, but if the data of tracked flights is real and his interpretation is correct, then the evidence implicating the US is damning. But the P8 flew from the US and not Norway as Hersh states. I'm not sure where the skyglass software he uses gets its data.
https://youtu.be/XPUwgaAScp8?t=613
and this one starting at 11:52
https://rumble.com/v1m7duo-monkey-werx-sitrep-9.30.22-live-threat-level-midnight-bobbleheads-at-work.html
Scott Ritter comments on the Hersh article:
https://rumble.com/v28ydm8-sabotage-the-plot-to-blow-up-pipelines-and-the-plot-against-james-okeefe.html
@Joe
An attack via HAAWK missiles?
The Hersh article describes an attack by divers setting explosives charges on the pipelines. These were later detonated by remote control:
On September 26, 2022, a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane made a seemingly routine flight and dropped a sonar buoy. The signal spread underwater, initially to Nord Stream 2 and then on to Nord Stream 1. A few hours later, the high-powered C4 explosives were triggered and three of the four pipelines were put out of commission.
@Tom
Insane strategies are beyond the scope of analysis. Russia is not at risk of being broken up. The only realistic opportunity at Washington's disposal is to subjugate Europe. They have succeeded - for now.
The NC pundit is wrong. Ukraine is a distraction for its intended audience; Europe's dependence on Russian energy was the motive. Accomplishing anything beyond that would've been a bonus.
In retrospect, Moscow's response to the coup in Ukraine was mistaken. They made the right call with regard to Crimea, but got everything else wrong. 14,000 civilians killed in the breakaway republics, empty peace agreements, renewed hatred among Europeans, and a war that is dragging on far longer than necessary because of Russian commitment to a now imaginary Slavic brotherhood.
I know this doesn't sit well with those who believe that everything Russia or China does, is the product of genius.
@@ Peter Pan
I have given reasons from the international relations, foreign policy and military world, as well as historians. This rationale is original to neither Yves Smith (Susan Webber) or me. It is found in international relations, foreign affairs, military strategy, and history.
What is the basis for your argument?
BTW, Moon of Alabama has a slightly different version of events than Hersh, for those following this.
Fighting a nuclear war is insane. Therefore, there is no rationale for it.
The basis for my argument is that everyone loses. Unlike the ecological crisis, there is a consensus that going nuclear will terminate humanity.
Insanity precludes reasoning.
Accidents are also beyond the scope of analysis. An accident precludes intent.
How do we make predictions for such cases?
The answer is we don't. We build doomsday clocks and wring our hands.
@Peter
yeah, I don't know why he thinks it's a haawk, I was mainly interested in the flight data.
@Joe
He made that video months ago.
So it may have been that flight, except that it dropped a buoy.
I'm glad to see there's renewed discussion. Seymour Hersh is legendary.
Post a Comment