I'm using an older version of a map that was making the rounds a decade ago. You can tell because there is no longer a NATO presence in Afghanistan.
NATO members were run out of the country by a bunch of 8th century jihadis.
It would be good if the frontline NATO members facing Ukraine remember this fact and understand they are at risk of being hung out to dry should it prove expedient for the larger NATO members.
Loyalty to the West means nothing, as Czechoslovakia found out in 1938, the Montagnard tribesmen and Hmong found out in 1975 and the Afghan interpreters and fixers found out in 2021. Self defense/self reliance is probably worth at least as much As NATO's Article 5.
From Rabo via ZeroHedge:
By Michael Every of Rabobank
Choosing wallpaper during the Blitz
We really are back to elements of the 1920s and 1930s in tandem, it seems, even if markets still don’t grasp that underlying reality. Actually, markets are starting to grasp the 20s parallel when it comes to social unrest, political breakdowns where political parties are either compromised or irrelevant, and popular ‘movements’ emerge spontaneously instead (luckily so far absent charismatic leaders). Indeed, Wall Street appears to be all in -- by which I mean exacerbating -- it. The smart money also sees the end parallel of the everything bubble and a Fed raising rates anyway. Some focus on a 30s background where Russian President Putin says on European security: “It’s already clear…that Russia’s principal concerns were ignored” and that the West is using Ukraine as a “tool to hinder Russia”.
There seems no way to bridge the fundamental differences in interpretations of the 1975 Helsinki European security agreement that says all states are sovereign and free to decide which defence alliance they want to join, and that no state should join an alliance seen as a threat by another. Which clause has primacy? The former, if you view NATO as defensive. The latter, if you see NATO as offensive.
As in the 1920s/30s, you also get passionate, polarized views on who is to blame. There are those who see Putin as Hitler and Ukraine as the Sudetenland – or Poland. There are those who see the ‘US Deep State’ driving things. And both can be true, which just makes matters worse.
Meanwhile, the scandal-plagued UK government (this time it is about prosecco, not cake) and its Polish and Ukrainian counterparts are to sign a trilateral defence treaty. Of course, such defense pacts are not new - back in September 1996 the same trio were saying the same thing. Yet the UK guaranteeing not just Ukraine’s but Poland’s border…are history, and the UK government, slurring old lyrics, rhyming or repeating themselves?
There is also pressure building in the Balkans: Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia --maybe even EU member Bulgaria-- are all in a pot Russia is helping to stir. Its Foreign Minister just stated he does not accept that Montenegro and North Macedonia should be NATO members when they already are.
Yet NATO member Hungary’s PM just visited Moscow, and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs oozed: “Hungary has invariably confirmed its reputation as a reliable partner in the transit of Russian fuels. Naturally, we are willing to build up mutually advantageous cooperation in this area.” In other words, don’t expect any EU energy sanctions if Budapest has a veto? Yet that means the West has no pressure point against Russia except the military, where it is outgunned.
Meanwhile, Russia just banned the export of ammonium nitrate for two months (while Lithuania has fully blocked the rail shipment of potash from Belarus). The potential upside impact on fertilizer prices in Europe should be obvious. So should the fact that Russia clearly understands the geopolitical and geoeconomic pressure points that *it* controls. They can see the US does not want to raise rates but has to. They can also see that they can force inflation far higher, inflicting huge economic pain, even if they take some too. That is how economic wars work. Are we ready to fight one, or are we going to redraw borders to avoid one?
The scale of what is happening over markets’ heads --and the naval-gazing drivel on Bloomberg this morning-- is summarized by former Portuguese politician Bruno Maçães in a Time magazine article, “What Happens Next in Ukraine Could Change Europe Forever”. In it, he notes: “The Russian television anchor Dmitry Kiselyov, known as a reliable Kremlin mouthpiece, explained on air during the past weekend that the current crisis is not about Ukraine: ‘The scale is much bigger.’” I concur: which is why I called it a metacrisis.
Maçães adds another line I have been stressing since 2017: “We no longer live in the old liberal order where rules must be enforced, and violators punished. We live in a new order where power must be balanced with power.” And the EU has no such power! If only its preparations had been made as far back as 2017 when ‘The Great Game of Global Trade’ came out.
As such, Maçães argues “The US must reflect on whether it can afford to reduce its presence in Europe before a proper counterweight to Russia has been created in Brussels. The pivot to Asia may need to wait for a solution to the European crisis. As for Europeans, they need to quickly prepare themselves for a new world, where their sovereignty and security may well be at stake.” Except the dynamic in the US is not moving in that direction. Asia is the priority, regardless.
He continues: “The existing order is starting to buckle, and Washington needs to decide how best to replace it with new arrangements. Does it prefer to reach a grand bargain with Moscow whereby the two powers divide Europe among themselves? Or does it prefer to encourage and support the development of a new European pole capable of balancing Russian power?” He is literally talking about a new partition of Europe into spheres of interest: and European markets are looking at what the ECB will do on Thursday. I can tell you ECB rates are unlikely to rise ahead --what’s new there?-- but I can’t tell you what the geography and political architecture of the EU where you borrow that money will look like in 5 years. Keeping a focus just on the screens at times like this is akin to happily choosing new wallpaper during the London Blitz....
....MUCH MORE
