This is an important piece. It should be obvious to all that the 20th Century’s drive for a one world , integrated capitalistic system, did not necessitate one world governance, but a proxy for it through the increasing dominance of a limited number of transnational corporations, global organizations of control and supervision such as the IMF, World Bank and facilitating structures such as WTO and its various members regional agreements such as NAFTA, TTIP (trans Atlantic trade and investment partnership) and perhaps still to come TPP ( trans pacific partnership) all spearheaded and unilaterally upheld (only when it was in our favor) by the American Empire.
As the empire wanes, it is only logical to assume that there would be disruptions to the frameworks of the globalization and economic integration process, one which the author clearly understands really began to unravel with the economic and market events of 2008, with the economic and dis-associative aspects of the Russian/Ukraine crisis being symptomatic not causal. Yet, with the support of monetary authorities attempting to assure transnational corporate profitability at the expense of the global workforce, there may be a long game outlook driving what appears to be serious fraying of the process of globalization, for it is driven not by geopolitics, but the other way around. It is geopolitics that is controlled by corporate interests and money.
Unlike people, corporations can live forever and in a period of seemingly infinite low interest rates on capital, the corporate time horizons that dictate geopolitical decision making in the modern capitalist/fascist world may be taking a longer view of the new, emergent landscape, one that is no longer ruled by one hegemon. Outside of the short term pain associated with the Russian embargo, one does not see to many screams from the dominant transnationals. None of the virtual geopolitical combatants on the chess board are witnessing their corporate interests being threatened with nationalization. The current fascist corporate -government partnerships operating under the capitalist umbrella are not being obviated by some other “ism” anywhere in the world, but perhaps in the ISIS lands, where it really did not exist anyway.
All this being said, the rising global chaos that erupted first in the economies and financial markets of the world was and remains inevitable. The goals of the globalists, ultimately is unattainable, at least in the form they have been driving the world towards–an increasingly centralized controlling core of transnational corporations in partnership with a limited number of global governing bodies backed by the coercive power of one, or several military and economic powers.
The world may be fragmenting and decentralizing economically and politically at the macro level, which I hold is a necessary step at rejuvenating the economic and personal freedoms of the ruled, but the battle is not close to being won and I am far from convinced that there is not a plan hidden in the chaos of our times that in the end will not find the nations and the people of the world more controlled economically, politically and behaviorally by a far more coercive globalized system than that which we have been theoretically watching fray at the seams.
Follow the shifts in power, the money and try and discern the beneficiaries of every move in the game that is afoot for there will be clear winners and losers and what seems as chaotic and random usually is not. And never, ever underestimate the powers behind the scenes. They have been dictating practically every move for centuries. Capital knows no national boundaries, it has no parochial loyalties and to capital, patriotism is an alien concept. In the long game, the short term always seems uncontrolled.
There is a mood abroad that says history will record that sanctions against Russia marked the start of an epochal retreat from globalization. I heard a high-ranking German official broach the thought the other day at the German Marshall Fund’s Stockholm China Forum. It was an interesting point, but it missed a bigger one. The sanctions are more symptom than cause. The rollback began long before Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, began his war against Ukraine.
The case for calling a halt to business as usual with Moscow is self-evident to anyone who considers that international security demands nations do not invade their neighbours. The valid criticism of the west is that it has been too slow to react. At every step, the Russian president has ruthlessly exploited US hesitation and European divisions.